Frank,
Thank you for sharing this.
As someone who was formerly a paid, on-staff pastor who has since left traditional church to plant a house church in my home, I can bear witness to this and say, "Amen."
Peace, Keith
I appreciate your honesty in your post. I respect your opinions of how the institutional church is often not the greatest example of Christlikeness. However I do not agree that all institutional churches fall into this category. As a pastor myself I have experienced a strong desire from most people to be "the church." What I mean b that is most people are looking for ways to put feet to what the read, hear and study in scripture. While I know you have that same desire, and are no doubt doing a great job of building relationships that will allow you to lead other to Christ by taking care of needs, please to not paint the organized church with to broad a brush.
An organized church according to your story was instrumental in bringing you to a place where Jesus means everything to you. Maybe the question should not be what wrong with the church, but how can I help change it.
I've always been fortunate to be in a community where we were busy doing the Fathers business. In my (humble) opinion many of the the dissatisfied Christians who end up leaving the church (in America), in one way or another are a victim of capitalism.
What I mean by that is some of the churches are out to provide a service or meet the needs of the people. Christians are encouraged to worship and pay tithes, but are perhaps not encouraged or equipped to do the work of ministry... which every Christian should do.
Instead we have consumer churches (which I assume you mean by "institutional"), where we have people who only come to get something, and when they are not "fed" they go somewhere else. Meanwhile they go home and cook dinner and feed themselves. Here in America we have the most well "fed" Christians on the planet, and we are doing the least in amount that we are given.
And the sad truth is that no matter what form your community may take, house church or institutional church, it can still be steeped in dead religion.
House Churches are no better, in my (humble) opinion, than any other form of Church. They both have strengths and weaknesses. As far as pagan roots are concerned... asprin has pagan roots. So that doesnt mean much to me.
It's fashionable today to condmn the "institutional church" as the source of all perceived societal dissatisfactions and ills. I suppose you feel that you are speaking truth to power, but actually, you are doing nothing more than the equivalent of kicking someone who is down. It is very immature to paint such a large, well...institution, with such a big brush--and not very truthful, either.
I am encouraged every time I hear this story. Thanks Frank for sharing an amazing testimony of power. As an ex-clergy member, I do hope that others who read this, PC, and RC... will do so being honest with themselves about the reality of our unfaithfulness to the New Testament. But, more importantly, our unfaithfulness to Christ.
David D. Flowers free-lance writer & blogger The Woodlands, TX http://ddflowers.wordpress.com
As a Christian songwriter and music minister, I've traveled the globe and witnessed perhaps every possible form of "church", from home groups to cathedrals over the last thirty-odd years. Some I experienced for a short time while travelling, and others on a more long-term basis, on staff or as one of the members. I only ran across Frank's work about four years ago, and was surprised to read his conclusions-- the same conclusions I'd reached independently.
I really enjoyed this revelation of his own journey. Such personal openness takes courage because, unfortunately, it invites attack. To those who would criticize him and his books, I suggest you examine your own motives, as Frank has examined his. How much of your anger is based on fear of loss of income, self-esteem, and the praise of men? Can you deal with the possibility that what you have built much of your life on may be wrong? What if you really need to repent-- to change your mind and your direction? Could you hear God if He told you Frank (an "uneducated" layman!) was right?
Yes, it's true that home groups can get sick and twisted, but they don't have to. Traditional hierarchical Christianity is wrong by design-- it's the exceptional church that can transcend its form and become something usable by God and meaningful to man, and it can only do so to the extent that it leaves the current model for the New Testament one. The foundation is good, but we have built with wood, hay, and stubble.
Jesus is once again cleansing His temple. Do you find yourself as one of the profiteers? It may be that you had no idea what was really going on, but now you at least have an inkling. Be like the men of Berea-- search the Scriptures to see if these things be so. You will find that they are.
Frank, I suppose I am blessed in that the little church I attend is a lot more free-form than many churches. I get a kick out of the label "non-denominational" since almost every such church is pastored by someone who was trained in specific denominational traditions and liturgy. While my current pastor is among those trained in certain traditions, he is much more open to an organic approach in our church meetings and in our service to the congregation and the community. We're a lot more like an "Acts 2:40-47" church than the high liturgy and dogma of a Catholic church. Then again, we are a very small church.
While I agree with some of the other commenters that it is fashionable these days to attack the institutional church, I agree with you also that it is ludicrous to assert that only apostolic ordination gives one the ability to pastor to God's people. On the contrary, Jesus told his disciples that they would do more and greater things in His Name! Your experience has shown that while a background in theology and the history of the church doesn't hurt, it isn't necessary for a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
I left church in general over 30 years ago as an agnostic and returned just 3 years ago as a firm believer, and the change between the old main-line church where I was raised and the Bible-based church I now attend is dramatic and heartwarming. I have no intention to leave this church for a house church nor any other. God called me to this church (another story in itself), and I plan to stay until such time as He calls me elsewhere. But thank you for your testimony nonetheless. I pray that you and all the other folks who have left the institutional church for house churches can be moved and continue to work to glorify God in all you do.
Thought I'd go ahead and tell how I came to Frank's position, just as support.
My initial experience of Christianity was thoroughly denominational-- my dad was even a seminary professor. However, by my teen years I had rejected that form on every level, mistakenly searching the world for what is only found in Jesus. Then, one morning in August of 1974, God spoke to me audibly, completely changing my ideas and experience of Him. He said, "Don, this is Jesus. I love you. Why do you keep running from Me?" That was the day I stopped running.
Almost immediately, because they were the only Christians I was in touch with, I got involved in a house church. There, I learned one-on-one about the Holy Spirit, His gifts, spirituality-- and demons. Unfortunately, this particular house church became very unhealthy, as most of the groups in the "Discipleship Movement" did. When my eyes were opened to the abuses, I bailed out. For another few years I attended different churches, actively seeking a home but finding none.
Then, in 1978, I stumbled into some house churches in the South of England. I could try to describe them, but that would take too much time. Just let me say that once you've been in a meeting of believers that's run by the Holy Spirit alone, where Jesus Himself is the worship leader and the Father welcomes you before His Throne-- once you've been in meetings like that, you can't settle for empty doctrine, emotionalism, external spirituality, or anyone else's attempt to design a "worship service". Even Rodney Howard Brown's meetings couldn't touch those times.
Since that time I've studied the Scriptures and church history, and have come independently to agree with virtually everything Frank has to say. Things I haven't been able to say in my songs, Frank has said in his books.
Why I believe the institutional church needs a complete rebuild, not just version 2008.8.4, etc.: 1) The Scriptures 2) Experiencing how good a Body meeting can be when it's right, and how healthy the believers are who are part of it 3) Experiencing again and again how pointless and downright harmful hierarchical Christianity is, from continent to continent and from denomination to denomination.
I guess this little testimony is really a plea: Hear. Listen. Change: For your own sake as well as the sake of those who need to see real believers.
I left for the same exact reason -the $. My husband and I have a small business and one day we walked into a brand new 4 million dollar building and realized it was just another business. (My husband calls it Buying Good). Then the tithing part of the service came up and a girl in front of me who was almost destitute gave a check. All I could think of was the overhead and the mortgage on that castle and how barely put together she was (she would have never been allowed to serve looking like she did-there were rules). It should have been the other way around, you know? So now I've heard that they put on another 7 million dollar addition and who, in this economy is paying it off?
As for your blog post the other day-They can't afford to give $, they're too stretched paying tithes.
this was an interesting post. it allowed me to re-ask just why i'm still involved with the institutional church. of all the reasons given for the inadequacy of the institutional church in the post, the most powerful was the neglect of the poor. here, much was given to us and we have much for which we must answer.
still, the fact that our theology is shallow and we far so fall from the n.t norm doesn't seem a compelling enough reason to leave. instead, i think mr. viola's most potent argument for leaving was his genuine desire to begin again, anew. i do not have the bravery to do this, and so i applaud him.
there is a dangers here, of course. christendom, while certainly dying, is not yet dead ("the wheel is still in spin" to quote the bard of the 60’s), and so any new form of church (no matter how well thought out, and no matter how ancient/future) will certainly not be the final result of this new reformation.
i’m old enough to remember (and honest enough to confess) that in the late 70’s there was this movement called “church renewal,” of which i was a part. there were authors (now forgotten) and conferences (notebooks properly placed on shelves) and the whole shebang. just like now. but, christendom buried “church renewal.” and if we’re not careful it will do the same with emergent, submergent & missional as well.
Fine article and I can really relate having left the church over 3 years ago.
A comment to Don Francisco:
You said that Frank's book puts it into words far better than your songs do - I beg to differ.
As a newborn back in 1991 - your music was one of the first that I listened to loaned to me by a friend. The song I speak of is "Adam where are you?"
That song said it all for me and unlike the myths of original sin as typically purported by the church, that song to me was not a cry just to humanity but esp. to followers/believers.
There are so many theological divergent views in circulation and although I came to the Lord by His drawing (John 6:44) via an end time ministry - much of what I experienced of phenomenal spiritual significance happened all outside of the traditional church setting.
That in itself is a looong story but needless to say I exchanged the divine one-one I had for churchianity becoming a P&W leader et al. serving on committees and sadly my biggest disappointments have been not with God but with the church that claims to represent Him. In fact even while in the ministry of P&W I neglected my studies and was in essence a backslidden person spiritually and boy did I give. :(
I came upon the concept of CU at a time when I had essentially tossed the Christendom thing and by en large was agnostic. This got me back into the word and reopened my eyes to the wonders of His kingdom.
What it has taught me is that we often look to systems, people and fallible man-made structures yet by introspection we actually discover where the Throne of God is and not some sky-god as we are essentially taught.
I tried hard to conform to the system that said "come just as you are" but then tried only to try reshape you to conform to their image.
In fact the teaching of Jesus are soo relevant today where He went against the traditions of His time and how it is still relevant today.
So I still hear God calling to ALL (believers and unbelievers) "Adam, where are you?"
Thank you Don for your inspiring music, Thank you Frank and others who dare to be different just like Jesus was/is.
Blessings
As I expected, you came to your position primarily through your bad church experience. Your theology followed your boredom.
Hey, I've sat through some boring sermons, but if my heart can't get stirred up when the word of God is preached, doesn't it say something about me?
I don't see open forum sharing sessions in Scripture. It's like paedobaptism, if you were left on an island with just your Bible you would never come to such a theological conclusion.
And such a meeting would be soooo unappealing. If I had to listen to every word some brother thought the Lord put in his head, argh. Hey everyone! I just wrote a song, let's all sing it! Please.
Well, I said my piece...
Just an observation. Most of the critical comments on this post seem to come from people who have not read "Pagan Christianity?" and so are making assumptions about Frank's views. I challenge those people to actually read the book with an open mind and then decide whether you think Frank's criticism of "institutional" church is fair.
And to Aaron Ronetski, I think you might have missed some of what Frank said here. In fact, you appear to have read this post with your mind made up already. "As I expected, you came to your position primarily through your bad church experience." So you found what you were looking to find. Frank talked first about his early questions about scripture and why churches weren't following it. He then talked about how those questions were never satisfactorily answered and he kept asking more. His bad experiences, if you actually read this post with an open mind, were only the last staw.
Actually Al, I have read Pagan Christianity? I understand you folks are passionate about this topic because its part of your Christian identity. You're all standing up for each other because your a maligned little group. That's fine. However, Frank's experiences are not necessarily typical of every Christian that has gone to a "traditional" church (for lack of a better term).
Simply put, the "organic" church movement is just that, a movement. It will never be predominate on the Christian landscape. Perhaps you have the freedom to embrace the open forum format (hey, Harold Camping does, as long as you listen to him), but to reintrepret Scripture to fit a square peg into a round hole isn't exactly going to bowl over 2,000 of orthodox Christianity nor the way the Holy Spirit has led the church. Do you think Christ would allow His bride to steer so far afield from the truth? I don't.
Thought correction: 3rd to last sentence should read, "2,000 years of orthodox Christianity, etc."
Aaron,
Actually, my comment to you was about your approaching this post with a preconceived notion of why Frank left the Institutional church. And of course, you read only what you were looking for and ignored the rest. You mentioned nothing about Pagan Christianity, so I have no way of determining your perception of it at all.
Personally, my institutional church experience wasn't negative. I came at my conclusion that it wasn't the church as God intended it via study.
As for God allowing his people to steer so far afield of the truth? One has only to look at the Jewish religion in Christ's day to answer that question.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but obviously I (and possibly Frank) believe that the institutional church are the ones who have reinterpreted scripture to fit a sqare peg into a round hole. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Al,
I've read Frank's theological reasons for leaving what has been termed the "institutional church". Given that I think those reasons are Scripturally weak and his case unproven (as it doesn't carry my conscience), reading this post about his boredom and his "Exorcist" experience (why do they always vomit some green substance? hmm) simply confirms my suspicion--that his experience weighed more heavily in the matter than compelling Scriptural evidence.
Secondly you did say, "Most of the critical comments on this post seem to come from people who have not read "Pagan Christianity?" So, given that I made a critical comment I thought it was appropriate to state that I had read the book. Which aspect of it would you like to discuss? How about this choice quote about church steeples from pg 31, "Ever since the inhabitants of Babel erected a tower to reach to the heavens, civilizations have followed suit by building structures with pointed tops." Yeah, compelling. Church steeple=evil.
You said:
"As for God allowing his people to steer so far afield of the truth? One has only to look at the Jewish religion in Christ's day to answer that question."
You'll notice I said in my previous comment "2,000 years of orthodox Christianity", that would indicate since Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church in an event that had been prophesized in the OT. The Jewish synagogue wasn't lead by the Holy Spirit in this way, was it? Even so, Jesus told His disciples, the teachers sit in Moses seat, do as they say, but not as they do. Not to ditch the synagogue and meet in Peter's house. Be that as it may, since Frank asserts that the Reformers, the Puritans, the Methodists, etc. all made a few nice contributions but still got it wrong, do you assert that the Holy Spirit has been AWOL until He opened Frank's mind to the true truth about what He really wanted the church to do? Secrets about the church now revealed? I'm having a hard time buying that one.
No doubt, there were cultural influences on the development of the church throughout it's history. I don't deny that. However, God uses culture--it's a part of our make-up. Meeting in caves and catacombs was appropriate for the 1C church (given that they were persecuted), but meeting in church buildings in 21st century America is appropriate for our time and culture. No big evil there.
It's interesting that many will criticize the "institutional" church for being culturally irrelevant today, but then lambast it for being culturally relevant in the 1st-4th centuries. See an arbitrary inconsistency there? I do.
Demons? And in the 21st century?
Christianity is an intelligence test. If you believe, you flunk.
Bob
Bob,
I'm not particular about the demons, but perhaps you should know a thing or two about the subject you're trying to ridicule. Why would an unbeliever be popping in to a Christian web site if you think it's so stupid? Surely with your intellect you should be on some hard science web sites mixing it up with the big boys. Assuming you're an atheist, perhaps you can justify morals in an atheistic world view? I mean, it should be easy, you being so smart and all...
Bob, Many are disrupted about American Christianity especially those of us who have encountered and learned from the quiet, amazing faith of some of the "Lost Boys of Sothern Sudan" who have escaped genocide having seen and experienced the unthinkable at a very tender age and have come through it by God's mighty hand. Yes, demons are subject to the powerful name of our Lord, God Jesus Christ. Some of us realize we fall terribly short here in our country and have blasphemed the name of the Lord who has bought us with His own blood, desicrated the Sabboth and become idolatrist's in very many ways. Yes, we have neglected to use our spiritual gifts, and talents in the Kingdom of God. We've repented in such a way that we refuse divisions in the body of believers, and urge ourselves as well as others to let go of resentments to dwell in the holy moment of the great "I AM." I must say I do remember some of my pastor's anointed sermons because God showed me to respect His holy word and honor the speaking of it. Men such as John Frye, of Grand Rapids, and Holland, Michigan, and Frank Marsh. of Gowen, Michigan, have used the word of God in powerful ways in lives for over twenty-years in churches with signs and wonders through the power of God in prayer,but they have so taught their congregations to respect God that we don't get all caught up in the "signs and wonders." God has gifted men and woman exactly where they are meant to be, doing the things they are gifted to do at the time they are, within the organized church. We are members of one another for better of worse. Pull together wilth those around you. Love one another, forgive whatever grievances you have with one another all day long, every day. Dwell in God's secret place in Christ and glorify Him alone and watch souls come to know Him through the healing, gentle, merciful, gracious, holy spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Aaron, You don't see 'open forum sharing sessions' in scripture? I don't see church buildings in scripture. So there. (sounds kinda adolescent doesn't it?)
Actually, the description of a worship assembly in 1 Corinthians 11 look pretty open forum to me. Also don't forget our translations sometimes color our interpretation. In Acts "Paul PREACHED til midnight?" Actually the word for preach is not the same word normally used. It's the word where we get our word "dialogue."
I'm not a big believer in demon possession either, but that victims all vomit green stuff doesn't disprove their existence. If anything it demonstrates consistency of experience.
So, Kyrux, you believe The Exorcist was a documentary?
Bob
Aaron, my comment wasn't direct at you, but I'd be glad to hear what you believe about demons. You said, "I'm not particular about demons..." What does that mean?
Bob
An inspiring story. As a Christian I believe that evil does exist and is often not seen or dealt with by Christians - individually or in churches. I also do believe in exorcisms and therefore in some form of possession. I will remember your powerful testimony. But I retain a measure of skepticism. I am a health care provider and have seen my share of patients and families who, confident in their faith in Christ, assure me that mom or dad or sis have been "delivered" or healed from cancer or alcoholism or arthritis - only to show up at death's door a few months later. This is unfortunately very common.
And so I must ask you this question on behalf of myself and all the readers. Where is Derrick now and is he free of mental illness and the demons that plagued him?
Kyrux,
The passages you refer to from 1 Corinthians are descriptive of what took place, not prescriptive. In other words, the narrative is telling you how it was with that church, but not prescribing how things are to operate in every church through all time. The lack of properly qualified leadership was probably the reason the Corinthian church was so disorderly. Outside of that section of Scripture, you're scriptural evidence dries up quickly.
And you don't see church buildings in Scripture because that aspect of church life hadn't developed yet (not to mention such an endeavor would not have been welcome by the Roman or Jewish authorities at the time). You also don't see hymnals in Scripture, are you in favor of exclusive psalmody too?
Bob,
I'm not dogmatic about this, but I believe demon possession had a purpose at a certain time and place in history. Namely to demonstrate Christ's authority over principalites and powers, even evil ones. Christ casting out demons, or the fact that they asked Him for permission to possess the herd of pigs in Mark chapter 5, display His glory and establish his claims to be the Son of God.
Now that has been accomplished. No more need for it. No doubt, weird and unexplainable evil things still take place, things that could be attributed to "demons", but I don't jump to such conclusions or acribe such things to them. However, there is room for disagreement about this issue among Christians. In the end, it doesn't affect a whole lot with regard to the Christian faith. I just think it's odd that Hollywood's version of demon possession happens to mirror Frank's experience. Not saying it didn't happen because Frank testifies that it did, just think it's odd, that's all....
Aaron, the sequence you describe, of magical things happening in the olden days but not now, is common in the folklore of most cultures, most notably the Greek and Roman. Just like in the bible, "there were giants in those days". That obviously reflects the fact that it is mythical, never occurred, and was made up later on.
Do you or anyone have any evidence, other than movies and TV, that such a phenomenon as demons actually exist? Or is it a faith thing, no evidence needed. Or allowed.
As for Franks' tall tail, I'll assume he's just lying, taking advantage of the gullibility and ignorance of his audience, unless he has something more than his assertions to back it up. Of course I could be wrong, he could really believe his tale, but I doubt it. He's just pumping himself up.
Bob
Bob,
Apparently you're a naturalist. If evidence were provided to you, the next problem would be how you would interpret that evidence in light of your naturalistic world view. As a Christian, I'm a supernaturalist, so I have no problem believing in the spiritual activity of things I cannot see, nor do I need evidence in the manner you would require it. You discard the biblical record of giants out of hand, for example, because you don't see any giants today, and you don't consider the Bible a reliable source of information. I don't expect to convince you otherwise.
As far as Frank's testimony about his "demonic experience", I believe it happened (or at least Frank perceived it that way) because he is a Christian. Otherwise he would be bearing false witness and defiling his conscience before God. That is something a Christian cannot do unless there was corresponding repentence. Since there has been no retraction of the account, I believe his testimony (even though I don't agree with his conclusions about it)...
So you don't have any evidence. Not surprising, since there isn't any.
You said: " .... you don't consider the Bible a reliable source of information." How can anyone, Aaron, with all the blatant inconsistencies? When even the genealogy of Jesus isn't known by the divine author of the book, his father? Matthew 1:1-16 purports to delineate the genealogy of Jesus and shows 28 generations from King David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-31 also claims to give the lineage of Jesus, but shows 43 generations from Jesus to King David. And, amazingly, only the names of David and Joseph are alike in the two accounts!
That is the inerrant word of God?
That may pass as a reliable source for Christians, but not for anyone with even minimal requirements for truthfulness.
Bob
Bob,
You said:
"So you don't have any evidence. Not surprising, since there isn't any."
Re-read what I said about what you would accept as evidence. This statement confirms my point.
As I recall, Matthew and Luke present the geneology of Jesus from different parents (that is, Luke on the maternal side and Matthew from the paternal side). So, you're rock solid objection in this case melts into lava.
However, as an unbeliever you'll find so-called mistakes in the Bible all the time...
Aaron, you said: "As I recall, Matthew and Luke present the geneology of Jesus from different parents (that is, Luke on the maternal side and Matthew from the paternal side). "
Well, that may be the party line, and I can understand Christians needing one, but that is simply not true. I challenge you to read it for yourself and see what it actually says.
If there is a logical, reasonable explanation for the discrepancy I'd sincerely like to have it explained to me. No natural or supernatural world view involved here, just a straightforward question of what your book says.
Bob
Bob,
If you examine the geneologies closely you will see that I'm correct. The purpose of the geneologies is to link Christ to David to Abraham to Adam. I believe F.F. Bruce (a NT scholar) dealt with this issue in "Answers to Questions", which you can find used on Amazon.com.
Be that as it may, do you really think if such a so-called massive discrepancy (as you suggest) existed, it wouldn't be acknowledged by both those within and outside of the Christian community? Even secular academics don't assert what you say...
Aaron, that's simply not true. The genealogy is as I described, is not the lineage of Mary, and the two are totally different. I don't need anyone to tell me what they say, I can read English quite well. This problem cannot be explained away, although many clumsy attempts to do so have been made.
You said, "Even secular academics don't assert what you say..." Read Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_. He first discussed this in 1794, but I doubt he was the first. It's not a new problem, and has been widely studied by both secular and religious scholars.
There are many such inconsistencies in the bible, which is surprising, since the putative author is said to be infallible. Even the bible itself proves that not to be true.
It has been an interesting little discussion, Aaron, but has no profitable future.
Don't let the demons, devils, ghosts, witches, familiar spirits, necromancers or giants which inhabit your imaginary, biblical world sneak up on you.
Bob
Bob,
Usually unbelievers need a little more than what they consider to be "name discrepancies" in geneology lists before they conclude the Bible is unreliable. I suggest you dig into it a little more by consulting the numerous commentaries on Matthew and Luke before you dismiss what I said out of hand. That is the least you can do, unless you're just looking for reasons to reject Scripture. I trust that you have the intellectual honesty to understand the orthodox Christian position from the appropriate sources instead of holding to stock objections found in "The Atheist Reader".
Thanks for the interaction and your concern for my well-being...
Frank,
I experienced a deliverance almost identical to what you describe here in your post. The institutional church does not get it when it comes to true spiritual warfare. My deliverance went on for about 4 hours. More than once, the demons tried to choke me to death. Fortunately, I had an experienced person praying for me. If you need to get in touch with people who REALLY know what they're doing in this area, contact me. I'd love to introduce you to my friends. Some of the things we've seen and been through are simply amazing.
With best wishes,
dm
After reading all the comments I realize why I left the institutional Church. It was all the pseudo philosophers and men's intellect that caused the problems with the Church being so messed up today. So 2000+ years we are still arguing about simply stupid and vain intellect. Only the intellect of the Holy Spirit who points to the real Jesus Christ will solve our differences. My advise is this. Simply don't argue with an idiot. Don't argue period. Jesus simply did what the Father said to do and ignored those He offended. Jesus Christ is the end of all discussion and arguement. That is if you love others as yourself. Don't defend yourself, Christ simply will do that for you. So with division continuing on I wonder if we will ever see each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord. I just want to see Jesus in others and hopefully they will see the Jesus in me. Doctrines of men be damned. May all glory go towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Love to all the brethren.
Well Bill, that sounds very pious and all. Don't know what it really has to do with the "institutional church" since apparently you organic church folks can argue about points of disagreement as well. I wasn't "arguing with an idiot", I was having a discussion with an unbeliever. Perhaps what was spoken will lead him to further study the issues he's having a problem with, and perhaps the Lord will use this as a means to lead him to Himself. I hardly considerate it loving others as I love myself to let unbeliever's questions and/or arguments go unanswered because, well, "doctrines of men be damned". What doctrines would those be exactly? The harmony of the gospels? Diety of Christ? Or are you rather saying "doctrine doesn't matter"? It does to Jesus, He spent a lot of time teaching it...
Aaron, you might want to take a look at what some of your fellow demon apologists have been up to. Goodbye, Javon.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/16/6474116-ap.html
I really appreciated this article. Thanks for telling us your story. I read your article on your blog http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/stripping-down-to-christ-alone-rethinking-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ and it made reading your experience with the demon possession easier to understand.
Oh brother. Let me say it again but louder, OH BROTHER! Is this the best you can do to justify your efforts to further divide the body of Christ. Just a bunch of subjective whining by one more person who has figured out the way thing are "supposed to be" and is determined to correct all the idiots out there that think their church is just fine. Do we really need another try at getting it right. What if I get bored with your version. Will my dissent be just as justified as yours?
The Church will always be in need of revival and sometimes even reform but it will never need a "do over"! I did read your book and it is deeply disturbing the way you make a case that so neatly fits the preconceptions you brought with you to the book . Satan is the author of schism. "The Church is the pillar and ground of truth", not your experience.
I have read many of Frank's books and articles over the past two years. I have also read multiple responses to Frank's writings on various blogs and websites. I find a couple of things in common among them: Those who are critical often seem to take his statements out of their context, they often seem to take personal offense to what has been written or discussed, and they often sound angry. None of these things seem to agree with the Scriptures.
I am profoundly thankful to Frank for having been the instrument the Lord has used to set me free from a lifetime of bondage to an old and irrelevant wineskin, and to help me see a picture of the true and beautiful Bride of Jesus. And, more than that, I am experiencing a vibrant and exciting relationship with Jesus that I never dreamed of - and this after "knowing" Him for most of my life! There is nothing that can compare.
Well Howie, Christians usually take offense when someone attacks what they understand to be the Bride of Christ and assert that Christ REALLY meant for the church to be "organic" sharing sessions. Christians usually love to hear the Word of God preached, so they take offense when someone asserts that the sermon is detrimental to body life. Usually Christians love and appreciate their pastors, so they take offense when someone asserts that according to the Bible there really shouldn't be any pastors. I could go on, but I think you get the point. If they sound angry, it's because Frank makes dogmatic statements about the errors he sees in the "institutional church" (which takes many forms, by the way, so such a blanket statement is simplistic) without much biblical material to back up his statements. It's no different than you "organic" church folks get when someone attacks your understanding of what the Bride of Christ is or should be.
I'm glad you're experiencing a vibrant and exciting relationship with Jesus, so am I. I am profoundly grateful for my little Baptist church. And I don't need to sit in my uncle's living room and spontaneously sing praise songs and listen to what everybody thinks the Bible says to have such a relationship with my Lord and Savior.
Now, if you care to actually deal with Scripture, I'm game. Let's hear the biblical defense of open forum sharing sessions as the normative feature of the church throughout all time. All I've heard thus far here and in other places is a lot of emotionalism with little substance.
I would allow for differences among brethren. If you would like to say that you agree with Frank's understanding of what the church should be, that's fine by me. But when you say (or anyone else) that the church should be, and only be, what Frank says it should be, well then I have a problem with such thinking...
Aaron, you are responding to one short article as if it were making a complete case for each point. That's really silly. The biblical arguments that answer your question are laid out in Pagan Christianity by Frank and George Barna and the sequel Reimagining Church which has an entire chapter on the kind of meetings they are espousing. The biblical arguments are in the sequel and their case is very strong. Read those books then you can speak intelligently on where and why you disagree. Incidentally both books define what they mean by institutional church and organic church.
Aaron, In nearly all of your comments you come across as sarcastic and arrogant . I'm wondering if that distracts greatly from whatever points you're trying to make.
Jim,
I've read Pagan Christianity, which part would you like to discuss?
Ih,
I don't think so, but thanks...
Can't get enough of the truth that is coming forth from Frank Viola's work. I'm reading Reimagining Church for the third time in the last three weeks. Having been abused in churches repeatedly by professional pastors I have seen the worst of it. In short, I have built ministries as a "lay" leader only to have the robbed professionals take them away after they were successful, and then run them into the ground. I will not lay my pearl before these swine ever again. They only turn, and tear you to pieces.
These books have simply given confirmation as to why the abuse is so prevalent. Further, NOVA, (National Association of Victims of Abuse), lists pastors as the profession, along with the military and police as the ones perpetrating the highest incidence of spousal abuse. Why? It's all about power and control. The "power" given to the "top" man is transferred into the home. It is coupled with the abhorrent twist to scripture that they are "anointed", and are to be "submitted" to.
The truth, the real truth, about what is happening in the church is only being scratched. I see this as a revolution, and revolutions for the most part are wars. This war is between the "laity" and the "clergy". It is the battle to overthrow, turn back the lie.
The traditional institutional church is a lie built off the Roman's flim flam when they developed and embued a class, the professional clergy, with an imbalance of power, and put the church in cathedrals. The lie has been built off that foundation, and handed down for centuries. The facts don't lie. It astounds me that the truth, when penned in black and white and documented with historical accuracy as Viola has done is not distributed to every one in the church. The problem is the conditioning is so deep it will take a massive effort spread out over a long period of time.
Aaron, Pagan Christianity is just an introduction. All it does mainly is trace most church practices in Christendom and shows historically that the way we practice them isn't based in the bible. The issues you raise here are addressed in the constructive follow up Reimagining Church. That's where the positive vision is laid out and the biblical arguments are found. I read it in two days and it's one of the best books on ecclesiology I've ever read. Leonard Sweet, Alan Hirsch, and Shane Claiborne are among my favorite authors. When I saw their glowing endorsements on the book, I bought it right away. Reading Pagan Christianity without reading Reimagining Church doesn't give you the whole picture at all. You just get the first part of the story, the negative side. Read Reimagining Church and get the complete picture. As I told you, one chapter answers your challenge about gatherings as well as the difference between institutional church and organic church.
Thanks Jim, I intend to pick that up. Even so, if Viola intends to break down the "institutional church" he's going to have to do it from Scripture--not just his skewered conclusions based upon his limited use of historical data. It's interesting that he is happy to quote Will Durant (a pagan who hated Christianity and is going to slam the church whenever he can) in order to support his position. He also quotes men like JC Ryle and John Stott who rightly condemn holding to traditions without examining them by Scripture, but who certainly wouldn't lock arms with him in condemning the "institutional church" as both are Anglicans.
Mr. Viola has no problem, it seems, using whatever source he can to make his position seem objective. The fact is, it's not objective--it's his personal (if not misguided) conviction.
But I will read "Reimagining Church" when I get the book and some time, since it's Frank's theological defense of his position. However, I must admit I doubt his theological acumen can match Calvin, Luther, etc., or the modern scholarship of O'Brien, Schreiner, Frame, Moo, Carson, Poythress, Reymond, etc. etc....
Ih,
Do you think MPM's little rant was gracious or arrogant? He or she was stymied by the pastor, must be that all pastors are evil, right?
Aaron, no one can change your opinion but I disagree with it and so do many others. Pagan Christianity was cowritten with George Barna who is one of the best researchers in the country. It's also been endorsed by many theologians and scholars. You can read them all at http://www.paganchristianity.org
The authors have also answered common questions at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm , I'm glad you're going to read Reimagining Church. I thought it was a great book and makes a persuasive case.
Jim,
I've got the book, so I've read the accolades on the dust jacket. The "theologians and scholars" that praise the book are a group of no names in Reformed circles. I mean some of these folks publish a house church newsletter and wrote a book or two, so I'm not impressed with their approval or their credentials for making such an evaluation. They already hold to an "organic" church position, so I expect them to endorse the book. What does Westminster think of Barna's research though?
I'll check on the ptmin.org web site you mentioned, thanks
More "Ranting" from MPM
From Christianity to...Churchianity to...Insanity
It is said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again thinking you will get different results. If that is the case then the question needs to be seriously asked: Has the church has gone totally insane? You see, after the Romans usurped the power from the church by siphoning it out of the home, and placing it into buildings led by the professional clergy we have been stagnant and going slowly down hill ever since starting with the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, even since the Enlightenment there is still little giving evidence we are out of the dark.
Certain renowned Christian leaders and scholars like A W Tozer concur: "Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society's own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender."
That statement was made some forty years ago, and all one has to do is look at the culture in America, a supposed Christian nation, to see A W Tozer hit the nail on the head. Today, the difference is we have totally surrendered, but unfortunately, not to Christ, but to the world around us, and their smiles are widening.
Further, if we truly have the power of Christ in us, can look at the present conditions in our culture, and then continue doing the same things thinking there will be true transformation...well then, folks, we are indeed INSANE!
If we truly have the power within in us through Christ to bring about true transformation then it can also be said there is something going on that is severely deterring the release of that power in and through the life of the individual Christ follower to bring about that transformation. It is my contention that we need to look no further than the church itself, not some outside force. It is my contention we are being led by leaders that can only described as having gone "mental" on us. They appear to be a self absorbed, controlling, dominating group living under a spiritual psychosis of some sort, a schizoid paranoia, where they fear if they let the church be the church then they somehow will "lose it."
Look no further than this statement from The Lausanne Committee For World Evangelism: "The privileged task of pastors and teachers is to lead God's people (laos), into maturity and to equip them for ministry. Pastors are not to monopolize ministries, but rather multiply them, by encouraging others to use their gifts and by training disciples to make disciples. The domination of the laity by the clergy has been a great evil in the history of the church. It robs both laity and clergy of their God intended roles, causes clergy breakdowns, weakens the church and hinders the spread of the Gospel. More than that, it is fundamentally unbiblical." (Emphasis added.)
Today's Christian leaders produced by seminary training systems are led to set up church systems that severely stifle the church. When I ride by a "church" building I no longer see a church, but a prison, a large 'padded holding cell', a real cuckoo's nest. I can hardly look at one anymore.
If he were alive, I believe A W Tozer and many others like him would concur, as I believe Christ Himself would. Further, I believe if Christ appeared on the scene He would padlock the front door of our "church" buildings, and tell everybody, "GO HOME, and build the church from there!" And He would tell us we DON'T need the professional clergy to help us, and that in reality they have severely crippled HIS church, not theirs though they appear to think it is, through their domination and control.
Further, there appears to be a mania and delusion that has set in with many of the "prominent" Christian leaders today. Have you ever listened closely as you watched the "T D Jakes's, Andy Stanley's, Rod Parsley's, Paula Whites", and many others of our day. It's a mix of Elmer Gantry, Tony Robbins, and the Barnum and Bailey Circus coming to town - addicted to the lights and stage. If one of the main characteristics of bipolar mania is a manic episode of grandiosity and rapid speech patterns then they don't have bipolar, they have tri-polar, if not quad-polar. These people scare me to death. They're mumbling and jumbling all over the place.
Or, how 'bout the delusional spiritual Christian psychics on the networks. You know the ones, "I see someone who has a knee keeping you from walking, and God is healing that right now. Gill, what do you see?" She answers, "Joe, I see a man who has an ear that he can't hear out of, and the Lord is building a whole new ear drum as I speak." Friends, if they can see the person, do you think they can perhaps tell us the name of the one they are seeing? Have you EVER heard them give the NAME of the person they are "seeing"? I haven't! Guess God will heal them, but thinks it is better if He holds back their name. Hmmm...God is concerned about a legal restraint. He can't give Gill and Joe the names without their consent, right? Oh, Lordy...
Friends, I gotta tell ya, my skin is crawling, and I get the 'heebee geebees' just writing it.
Well, there you have it.
Christianity to...Churchianity to...INSANITY!
Perhaps we should lock the doors of the "church buildings" after everybody is inside them this coming Sunday, and never let them out.
You know, it just might be the only hope the Kingdom has today!
After all, they appear to have all gone mad - doing the same thing over and over again thinking they will get different results.
Aaron, Sarcasm makes for interesting reading, but I also find it makes the writer sound like an angry person. There is a time to express anger, but when most of one's comments are such in tone, it diminishes credibility. lh
MPM,
I certainly don't endorse the likes of TD Jakes, Parsely, Hinn (the king of the modern charlatans), etc.
However, you're projecting your limited (bad) experience and universalizing it for all Christians. Sorry, but my pastors are faithful, godly, and gracious men who love the flock of Christ. I've known both of them for 15 years, and we've been through a lot together as part of the church family.
Don't be surprised, however, when pastors sin--even grievously. The best of men are men at best, and they're still sinners. That doesn't make the pastoral office unbiblical or evil by nature. You should pray for pastors and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. I thank God for the godly testimony and example of my pastors because I know that if God left them to themselves they would surely fall, like the rest of us.
Your apparent anger about past wrongs done to you by pastors is clouding your thinking with regard to the church. Please reconsider...
Best,
Well said Ih,
That cuts both ways though, see the choice comments from some on the other side.
But I'll take your exhortation to heart...
Aaron, thanks for your response. Unfortunately, we are in disagreement on the biblical nature of the pastor's office, first and foremost because it is not an office. It a organic verbal expression of a task be carried out. Further, as Viola points out in his book, the word "pastor" is used only ONCE in the New Testament, and not at all referred to an office, or a static, buiness model for church leadership which it has come t obe in the church.
In addition, you are separating the pastors into a different class. Therein lies the foundation of the problem started by the Romans in anccient Rome. The pressure put on them as a result is heinous. Their families live in glass houses, and further, when they do sin as we all, and all need to confess, they are fearful to openly confess concerned they will lose their jobs. And, that is a UNIVERSAL problem they, and we in the Body of Christ all suffer from it.
Also, their oratory skill, and their performnace on Sunday is used to validate their title, and then feeds their performace based mentality down into the church. It displaces the grace based, unconditionally accepting environment God desires us to grow in. It is a vicious cycle. The pastors themselves are in a prison, and put their church in one as well.
Question, Aaron, have you read "Reimagining Church"? It has an entire chapter on this subject.
Also, you cna visit my site: www.ylifeonline.org.
You will see where my "anger" has led me.
MPM - The "Ranter"
Aaron, Yes, I've noticed MPM's comments. We can all get fired up when we're talking about something we're passionate about. I think that both you and MPM have made many provocative points, but I think they are so much more effective when you both choose to season your words with grace. I think it's safe to say that speaking the truth in love is something every one of us can improve upon. I know that without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, I do not and could not. lh
MPM,
You assert there is no pastoral office and then proceed to tell me what it should be. Where is your Scriptural support for this? You will just say that the verses discussing the qualifications for elders does not establish an office, I can just as easily assert that they do. Conclusion? There is room for disagreement and one cannot be dogmatic about it. There is nothing inherent in the text to prove one way or the other without a doubt.
Secondly, I'm not separating pastors into another class of Christian--you're doing that. I consider my pastors as fellow christians that labor among the flock, but who are also a part of the flock. They have a ministerial function among the body of Christ. So this assertion is hollow on your part.
Thirdly, you stating that pastors "perform" on Sundays is poisoning the well and maligning the motives of pastors. They labor in the word and in doctrine to serve the people of God and to build them up in our holy faith. They don't preach in order to validate their title, they preach because it is their calling before Christ as a functioning member of the body. The way you even stated this point is overblown. Again, you universalize your experience. My pastors aren't in prison, neither is my church, and neither am I. We're free in Christ. Who are you to judge this?
And no, I haven't read "Reimagining Church" yet, but I intend to. I try not to criticize books I haven't read, but I must admit my expectations are low given what I've seen in "Pagan Christianity?"
I'll try to check out your site, time permitting....
Aaron, I am assuming you read "Pagan Christianity?", because you said "what I've seen." However, what you saw could be the reviews given by the well known leaders in the institutional church for all I know. Of course, for the most part their reviews would be negative because "PG?" attacks their livelihood. If you have indeed read it, and the accurate scholarship and documented evidence in "PG?" didn't convince you of anything - then I doubt the sequel will either.
You are indeed right on this point. I am in no position to judge you, or any leader in your church. Kudos. Yet, I would say the universal impression is that a "pastor" gains his "patorate", and his level of pay on how well he "preaches" and performs on Sunday. The evidence is overwhelming. What do you think the primary requisite a pastors search commitee is using when they look for their new "pastor"? It is speakership.
Further, I would invite you to put their methods to the test. Go into any pulpit driven church, and two weeks after a "sermon" stand outside the door as the congregants leave the "church" building, and ask how many remember what the "message" was two weeks prior. I think you'll get 90 - 95% blank stares as their hands scratch the back of their heads.
Then, try the home church, and do the same. The staistics will reverse because the participation and interaction by all firmly plants the experience into the mind. In addition, the deep of intimacy and growth reveals a marked improvement over the institutional church.
My trying to discuss these points without if the books have not been read by you is pointless. You frame of reference due to your lack of revelation is accutely lacking to discuss it openly and honestly as a result.
I would like to know, did you read "PG?", or are you just shooting from the hip based on reviews from those in the institutional church?
Also, I didn't put the clergy in a seprate class - the Romans did when they established the Roman Ctaholic Church as a direct need for control and power, and the threat they believed the early church meeting in the home posed. This eventually led to the Dark Ages as the Bible was translated into Latin, language the commoners didn't understand. I'll stop there - don't have time to write a book.
In regard to the pastoral "office." I have heard and read the arguments from the instututioanl church regarding this, and Frank Viola's. The twain don't meet, and the latter blows the former out of the water.
If you want the scriptures get the book, and read it. It will help you gain a much more balanced perpective.
Best, MPM
I agree with Jim. "Reimagining Church" is an amazing book. I think every Christian should read it.
Aaron, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from the bible why we should support the modern pastor office. can you show us a person in the new testament that fits the description of a modernday pastor? you know, preaches sermons every week, marries people, does funerals, is the representative of a local assembly, and all the other things that "pastors" do today.
What makes Westminster so special? who cares what Westminster thinks? who cares what it thinks about George Barna? are you suggesting that Westminister is the only qualified theological school and only those who teach there should be regarded and everyone else, even though they are highly regarded throughout the Christian world across denominations, should be ignored?
I think it's strange that you're posting on this website since your view of Christianity seems so very narrow.
MPM,
I've read "PG?", if you read my other comments on this thread you'll see that. And as far as your assertion about pulpits and sermons, you're all wet. I retain quite a bit. And my church doesn't have a committee to interview pastors, although I know that's common among evangelical churches. One of my pastors was a church member for years before he was called by the congregation, the other lived and preached among us for over a year before he was called to be pastor here.
At any rate, if "house church" is where your convictions lie, and you find it to be to your spiritual benefit--fine by me. But don't assert it's THE way to go, or THE only true chuch established by Christ. The Lord of the church has His people in homes and in church buildings.
The major flaw in Frank's book is that he discounts the fact that God uses culture, it's part of man's make-up. Part of the church's growth throughout the centuries is it's cultural development. There were circumstances in the 1st century that influenced the way the church functioned, and there are circumstances in the 21st century that also influence it's functioning. This is undeniable, and it's true of your house church as well as it is for my "institutional" church.
It's just a matter of degree. You say there are elders among you but no office of pastor, I say there are elders among us who are to be recognized as pastors. That doesn't affect my christian life or my walk with Christ one bit. That's why I say this is much ado about nothing....
As far as discussing the book, which aspect of it would you like to discuss? How about this choice quote about church steeples from pg 31, "Ever since the inhabitants of Babel erected a tower to reach to the heavens, civilizations have followed suit by building structures with pointed tops." Yeah, compelling. Church steeple=evil.
Perhaps we could interpret the church steeple to be a structure which points to the heavens, with the hopeful affect of turning our attention to God? Hmm. I guess it all depends on which glasses you decide to wear...
Tom,
Actually the burden of proof is on you, as almost no one denies the office of pastor is established in Scripture. Your position is the one that is outside of what is accepted in the churches of Christ, not mine. You have to show from Scripture how the office of pastor, among other things, is unbiblical.
And nothing makes Westminster so special, I just picked it off the top of my head. I could have named any number of other scholarly Christian institutions (oops, there's the evil word), how about Trinity Evangelical Divinity School? What do they think about Barna's research?
I don't think it's strange that I'm posting here as (by God's grace) I have a catholic spirit. I read and try to understand the positions of brethren I disagree with. It's one of the things that has benefited me greatly. Perhaps you were thrown off by the way I express myself. I understand, it happens all the time...
Peace,
I've read all the comments and as an outsider to this conversation, I have to say that Aaron is closed minded and isn't hearing anyone with an opinion different from his own. The challenges that were given to him were appropriate and he's dodged them all. I read Barna's Pagan Christianity and it deals pretty well with the question of culture versus those traditions that have redfined the church that Jesus established. I'm almost finished with Reimagining Church and I'm liking it even better. It's so comprehensive in addressing the issues and so many of the ideas are new to me. I think talking to Aaron is a waste of time. He doesn't want to be confused with the facts.
Aaron,
A part of me wonders why you are even posting comments.
The proof is in the pudding.
I think the only way you could truly come to a proper conclusion is to attend a home church yourself with an open mind for a relatively extended period of time. Frank Viola's web site at wwww.ptmin.org can help you find one.
All the arguments of what is and what isn't will be answered there. That's my challenge to you.
Best, MPM
And what challenges have I dodged Sarah? Please clarify....and thanks for the kind words.
MPM,
You appeal to experience, I'm asking for biblical argumentation. I'm posting with the hopes of finding the biblical case for your position. Re-read the comments here all the way back to the top, do you see any Scripture dealt with in any depth? I don't. Just appeals to, well, just read Frank's books. Having read "PG?" my conscience isn't swayed. I guess Frank's book is the best case being made then, and if so I can safely lay this issue aside convinced I have no reason the change my position.
Thanks for the interaction though...
Best,
Aaron,
In all due respect, why in the world would I want to rewrite "Remiganing Church" here. That book has all the accurate scriptural backing with Greek and Latin going forward and backwards.
I've said all I need to say. Get the book for what you are asking for from me, and then go experience it.
I think there is only one reason you are posting. You're looking for something you're not geting in the instituional church.
Read the book - get involved with a home church. Then, post your comments.
Best, MPM
MPH said, " I think there is only one reason you are posting. You're looking for something you're not getting in the institutional church."
Priceless! Right on the mark! Aaron, let it soak in.
lh
MPM,
Actually I was looking for the reasoning behind a novel theological position that as far as I can tell is a rehashing of the doctrines held to by the "Plymouth Brethren". Unfortunately I didn't receive much, but that's OK...
God bless,
Ih,
I guess you're reduced to using the "you're really opposing this because you want to be a part of it" psychological argument, eh? :-)
Aaron, Part of what is happening in these posts is church in action. It is believers coming to "reason together", to interact around Biblical truth and understanding. It's not about one Spirit-filled man doing all the speaking, while other Spirit-filled believers sit passively by, with nothing to offer. It's not about psychological games. I believe MPM was correct in that if you were able to do this in the institutional church you'd feel less inclined to post your questions and beliefs in here.
lh
Aaron,
I think what can happen in a forum like this is we want to "win" something - that being the debate. I don't want to debate it. I don't want to win something. I only invite you to experience what I have found to be a deeper reflection of God's love when I have experienced it. Typically, it has always been outside the four walls of a "church" building. I find more often in a coffee shop or home setting with other believers.
All the scripture in the world to back up this or that is empty without love. It is a gonging symbol. Christianity has no power without love. Further, a building, whatever kind it is can't contain true love if authentic Christinaity is flowing.
It is my contention, not to point a finger at you for something you are or aren't receiving, only from I have experienced that what Frank Viola describes is the truest free form of authentic Christianity. I am simply passing the witness along to you.
You have to assimilate it, and make your own decisions. You're not going to lose your relationship with Christ whether you do or don't - that's for sure. However, you may indeed find it becoming richer.
Finally, I think what I want to tell you is that I love you as a Brother in Christ, first, and foremost, regardless of where you serve and grow in OUR Lord, Jesus Christ.
Best, MPM
Ih and MPM,
Well, this ended in irenic fashion :-)
The reason I post comments on web sites that generally hold to opposing theological views from my own is not only because I (sometimes) enjoy the debate, but because it prevents me from becoming theologically myopic. It is important, I think, to understand (or at least attempt to understand) the positions held to by other Christians.
In this case, since I consider being a churchman important, I wanted to see where Frank's sympathizers were coming from. Since I can't interact with a book, I entered into discourse here.
Be that as it may, though I disagree with the organic church concept (partly because I see many of the same dynamics Frank laments is missing from church life in my own church, albeit in a different context; and partly on biblical grounds) I'm not judging individual christians in that movement. Rather, I am asserting that the issue is not as black and white as Frank and others appear to think it is. It's no "slam dunk", as even the evidence Frank uses to defend his thesis is debatable. The conclusions he draws are not the only conclusions that can be drawn. Instead of condemning the "institutional" church, it should instead be recognized that there is (legitimate) room for differences among us.
It should be no surprise that some Christians have reacted strongly to Frank's book when in it he attempts to blow up what they hold dear and believe to be a biblical expression of what Christ intends for the church to be. If you're going to swing that way, don't be surprised when you get hit back. It's Frank's dogmatism that I oppose more than his position in and of itself.
Some assertions need to be challenged. I apologize, however, if I've offended with my use of sarcasm.
I should also say that I recognize the problems that plague the evangelical church today. It is because of these problems, and because of the lack of true spirituality in many churches, that some are turning to house churches. I contend that if churches were more biblical, they would have many of the aspects of christian community that Frank discusses. However, organic churches are made up of sinners also and have many of the same problems institutional churches have, to one degree or another.
As for this statement:
"Finally, I think what I want to tell you is that I love you as a Brother in Christ, first, and foremost, regardless of where you serve and grow in OUR Lord, Jesus Christ."
Since it could be said no better, I return the sentiment with hearty agreement.
In Christ,
AR
AR,
I don't see any dogmatism in the writings of Viola. I see confrontation. I see a man simply challenging the status quo. Also, as we are "turning to home churches" as you say, we are turning to what is the basis for true Christian fellowship, and growth.
Aaron, also, find me in the New Testament where the church model has the same man in a pulpit week after week, month after month, year after year as the man who gives the word of God. Second, the word "pastor" appears in the New Testament once, and when refined down into the Greek, and the context in which it is used it is a verbal expression not a noun. Perhaps we can start there, and move backwards.
Finally, you're right you cannot interact with a book, but you can with people in a home church environment. I think that is the purpose behind Viola's writings. To get you to EXPERIENCE what he refers to as organic Christianity. Without doing so you have no authentic frame of reference to speak from, only supposition, and for the personal enjoyment of debate. That will never lead you to any true revelation on this, only conjecture.
I have a frame of reference in the instututional church. I was in it most of my adult Christian life, 24 years, and I have very little to show for it except stunted growth.
Best, MPM
MPM,
And I thought we were bidding adieu...
Is Frank allowing for the legitimacy of other views besides his own? No. He is saying that his position is what the Lord intended the church to be. That's being dogmatic about the issue.
MPM, find me in the New Testament where the church model is a different man in the pulpit week after week, month after month, year after year as the men who give the word of God. Oh, wait a second, there are no pulpits in the NT. Guess we shouldn't use those then. Second, while the number of occurrences of any given word in the NT is not unimportant, it doesn't bear the weight of the argument you are trying to put forth. I believe "propitiation" is only used in the NT once, so shall we conclude it has no doctrinal purpose, when in fact it is central to understanding the atonement? Since the terms for elder, overseer, pastor, and bishop are used interchangeabley in the NT, the one occurrence of the greek word translated as pastor doesn't trouble me. It is an appropriate term for the office and is the one that is favored among Protestants. The terms for elder, bishop, overseer, occurr multiple times.
I should also mention that "organic" churches have defacto leadership. They just don't call them "pastors", but they serve the same purpose to a degree. Who's going to make crucial decisions with regard to the assembly? Who is going to resolve controversy? Who is going to determine the orthodoxy of any given doctrine? Who is going to bring a case of church discipline before the body of Christ? Is the church a democracy? And having biblically qualified leadership is hardly "hindering" the Lord Jesus from being the Head of His church, as Frank says in his book. Christ is the functioning Head of His church, pastors or no...
As far as your "frame of reference" point, that is untrue. I do have a frame of reference--in Scripture. I don't need to experience something in order to determine whether or not it is biblical. "You just have to experience it" is no apologetic. And it's not conjecture because I believe I have sufficient proof for my position in Scripture. It's not conjecture for me to determine from Scripture that Buddhist worship is wrong without having to experience it, for example (not equating organic churches with false religions, of course. Just making the point by way of illustration).
And I should say that I do have an acquaintance who is an elder in a house church. From what I gather, they confuse fellowship with worship. You seem to think that if you can't express your opinion during a worship gathering then you're being thwarted in the use of your spiritual gifts. Not so, you've got the wrong context...
Best, AR
AR, Are all views legitimate in any given situation? No. Is it OK to declare with confidence, that one's view is correct? Yes. Is that being dogmatic? Perhaps. What person, when making a stand on their conviction, avoids being labeled "dogmatic" by those in opposition? None.
You are right that God didn't ordain pulpits for His church. And, for good reason. They foster a hierarchial system amongst the followers of Christ, which cause human beings to look to the man behind the pulpit as their head rather then Jesus Christ. This is the same reason we have a plurality of elders and Spirit-led sharing of God's Word by those whom the Lord has chosen: qualified elders.
Propitiation is an act, the substitution of Christ for sin on our behalf. The word need not be repeated, for the doctrinal concept remains intact and does not change meaning. The term "pastor" is given to men who shepherd God's people, who are gifted to teach and called to protect. It is used interchangably with elder, bishop and other terms for the same office. I have not heard any pastor who understands hermeneutics deny this. Your argument here is a straw man.
Organic churches do not have defacto leadership. They recognize those whom God has qualified to be elders in their midst and understand the need for order in the gathering and mutual submission. The church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, and Christ is King.
MPM is not suggesting that experience dicatate belief. He is suggesting that you participate in a house church for a brief period of time so that you will have a real frame of reference from which to speak, regarding their nature and function. I don't think MPM was applying apologetics here. He was not trying to give a defense for his beliefs, as he has already done that quite effectively.
The tenents of Buddhism do not include worship of gods.
If you are sitting in a traditional church service and the pastor teaches heresy from the pulpit, are you free to stand up and address his false teaching? Of course not. When you find your courage and decide to talk to him privately, do you feel like he will humble himself, admit his error and go back to the pulpit to publically correct his wrong teaching? That would be rare, very rare indeed. Even Paul admonished Christians to check out what he said against the Scripture. Traditional church is not conducive to this. In fact, it works against it at every turn. Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
lh
AR, wasn't bidding adieu, only saying I was not out to win a debate at the cost of mutual edification.
Do want to iterate that the traditional institutional churches I have been in over the twenty four year span I was in them are some of the most respected in the conservative evangelical camp,. i.e., Chuck Swindoll's EV FREE Church in Fullerton, CA in 1990 before he had move to Tenn., Lake Ave Congregational in Los Angeles, Gene Getz Fellowship Church in Plano, TX, Gene authored "The Measue of A Man", and numerous other books, Perimeter Church in Duluth, led by Randy Pope, D. James Kennedy's Church in Ft. Lauderdale, and finally Forest Hill Church in Charlotte, NC, led by David Chadwick.
I am all too familiar with the corporate mentality, and have been abused by it repeatedly. I have experienced COUNTLESS times what lh refers to about addressing error. It's next to impossible. Try debating Calvinism in a Presbyterian PCA Church. You get buried. They are not open to discussion - only out for indoctrination before you can become a "member" of their church. That, in and of itself is contradictory to true Christian fellowship. I have seen John Calvin held in higher esteem than Christ on numerous occasions, and have Calvinist, (Christians), are more adept in winning someone to Calvinism over their ability to win someone to Christ.
Also, why in the world would you suggest comparing Buddhism as something to experience versus a Christian form of fellowship? All Christians with any foundation at all universally agree that Buddhism is not Christianity - so do the Buddhist themselves. So I think that illustration is rather ludicrous. Further, I was only recommending you do so to HELP you truly discern from first hand experience.
AR, again, my assessment here is you are not here to discover whether the home church can help you grow deeper and wider in Christ, but only to debate why it isn't. Forgive me in advance for any offense taken to the following. It seems you are the one being dogmatic.
I'm only offering encouragement to try it first hand. It won't bite you that is for sure. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised.
Best, MPM
Ih,
I allow for differences among Christians. I'm only dogmatic where Scripture leaves me no other option, like with regard to the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. However, Frank trashes 2,000 years of church history as a big mistake, as if the Holy Spirit were hand-cuffed by the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, and is dogmatic about it.
My comment about pulpits not being in Scripture was another instance of sarcasm. There aren't hymnals in Scripture either, but you still use them. If you're going to be that literal with the Bible, discard all items you use that are not mentioned in Holy Writ. And it's quite a jump to get from a pulpit to a hierarchical system which causes human beings to look to the man behind the pulpit as their Head rather than Jesus Christ. That's a non sequitur. To say the pulpit leads to idolatry is ridiculous.
Propitiation is the appeasement of God's wrath through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. My argument was simply that the number of occurrences of a word in the NT does not determine whether or not a doctrine or concept is biblical. I asserted that the terms for elder, bishop, overseer, etc are interchangeable in the NT, so the fact that the term translated as "pastor" occurs only once does not establish the non-existence of the office. Where's the straw man?
You said:
Organic churches do not have defacto leadership. They recognize those whom God has qualified to be elders in their midst and understand the need for order in the gathering and mutual submission. The church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, and Christ is King.
Me:
Right, so they have "elders" who do the same things that "pastors" do. De facto leadership. And I agree, the church is a monarchy and Christ is the King.
I know what MPM was suggesting, that experience was necessary to determine the truth-claims of the proponents of the organic church. Otherwise I have no frame of reference, which is wrong. Scripture is my frame of reference. I know Buddhists do not worship a personal deity, but they do worship. Regardless, it was an example. I could have just as easily plugged in Jehovah's Witnesses if you like.
I think your last statement betrays the fact that your view of pastors is jaded. First of all, if a pastor was teaching heresy he would be corrected by his church and fellow elders, and if he persisted in heresy he would be excommunicated. And any pastor who wouldn't receive the concerns of the people of God about what he has been teaching is showing himself not to be qualified as an overseer. He is to be temperate, gentle, sensible, not pugnacious, not self-willed, etc. On the other hand, he can't bow to every church member's problem with this or that doctrine, as he is commanded to "hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:9). You paint a tyrannical picture of the pastor, as if he has no tender-hearted concern for the sheep. You may have experienced this in your own life, but don't universalize your experience so that all pastors are thrown into the same bucket.
And I've heard pastors apologize for something they misstated or inferred or said that was wrong. A pastor that can't do that isn't worth his salt.
Finally, you said:
Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
Me:
Are you suggesting that everyone who speaks up at your church gathering is the direct mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit? So it's not opinion sharing, but divine revelation? Whoa, stop the bus...
MPM,
That's quite a line up of evangelical churches, you must have moved around a lot :-)
If you don't mind me asking, how were you abused by these churches? Generally and vaguely, no names of course...
And if the PCA church you were attending felt that way about Calvinism (to which I assume you are not an adherent) why didn't you just leave to attend a church with which you agreed? If the members of that church held to Calvinistic doctrine, what kind of fellowship did you expect to have as a non-Calvinist? Of course such a church is not open for discussion because they believe the doctrines of grace are biblical and true. Should I go to a charismatic church and try to convince them the gifts have ceased and passed away with the apostles? Wouldn't make sense, would it?
As I stated in my comments to Ih, the use of Buddhism was an example. To wit, that I don't need to experience something to determine whether or not it is true. I don't need to visit a Kingdom Hall to have a frame of reference to determine the truth-claims of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Best, AR
Yea, I built ministries from the ground up, and after they became successful the robbed "professionals" decided they better "handle" it. Then, I sat and sadly watched them run them into the ground. In addition, I had a senior pastor run off to copyright my work when I had brought it to him for perusal, and it is now used throughout his denomination. They are other stories, and it really makes me too ill to go into any further.
Regarding your statements on Calvinism. TRUE fellowship in the Spirit would allow for an open ongoing discussion of doctrine, and long as it is not universally understood to be off base - like trying to discount the resurrection, or that being born again is not necessary to enter the Kingdom. Further, Calvinism is more about grace through election and predestination, not the free will choice of grace offered to all. True fellowship allows both to be discussed and held freely in fellowship with one person not excluding the other. That's why denominationalism is such a barrier to unity in the Body of Christ. They split away from other followers of Christ because of a doctrinal issue, and cause disunity in the process.
Further, I would never "go to a church" for the sole purpose to debate their doctrines as you suggest. However, I will certainly leave one when they try to hold their doctrine as superior to the point of exculding others. In the Body of Christ we should gather together in unity of the Spirit and accept others in spite of their difference of doctrine as they accept us as long is there is not any severe departure from what is clearly defined in scripture.
In PCA churches I have attended classes entitled, "Free Will or Predestination", with a subtext, "Come join the discussion." It is not a discussion I can assure you. It is a set up to indoctrinate you into their own position of Calvininsm. It's a subtle form of brainwashing without true GRACE given to those not holding to the position of Calvanism. Then, when all is said and done you will not gain any traction in your service there as a result of holding a different position. It's like a cult. Heck, IT IS A CULT! Worse, is the way they live as if they have received some far superior revelation that only true spiritual intellects can grasp is really sick.
In true home based, organic Christinaity the aforementioned is absent. You can choose your own path, and remain with those described above. I have chosen mine, and am overjoyed I m ano longer a part of the institutional church.
Finally, back to the 'wit'. It appears you have evaulated your stance on organic home churhes growing in and out of the home as you would a Buddhist of Jehovah's Witness. Are you serious?
Also, you have tried in prior posts to devalue the claims of Viola because of a lack of renowned "reformers" justifying his work. Perhaps you looked past George Barna having co-authored the first book with him, or their online interviews. George Barna is recognized as one of the most often quoted men throughout Christendom. Not to mention Leonard Sweet's EXTREMELY glowing endorsement.
Now, I would find it hard to believe that any man truly seeking to engage and discern the truth of organic Christianity would refrain from taking a closer look with the 'witted' excuses you use.
In all due respect, the wind pouring forth from your lungs is fast becoming hot air.
Best, Pal Madden
Dear AR,
Again, being dogmatic often comes with strongly held convictions. Are you saying that it's only OK for you to be dogmatic with regard to ecclesiology and we are all to assume your understanding is grounded in Scripture, even when you've shown us no clear evidence of that??
Pulpits themselves do not lead to idolatry. Will you deny that many "laymen" see a pastor as higher in status (indeed, I know of pastors who teach that they are) and less approachable than "regular" Christians? A pulpit, by its placement and use becomes a focal point in the place of worship. I'm not sure that is where the Lord intended to have the bride of Christ focused week after week, year after year. Oh, I know you were being sarcastic. You usually are.
Straw Man: " an opposing argument, put up in order to be defeated or refuted." And, yes, I know you already know that. I repeated it for clarity. No one in here has stated that the number of occurrences of a word in the Bible determines doctrinal veracity. By implying that, you've put up a straw man argument that you can easily refute.
Yes, house churches have servant leaders/elders. If you want to call it a matter of fact, that's fine. However, there are many differences between organic church leadership and traditional salaried pastors.
With regard to your evaluating home churches on the same basis as buddhists or JW's, I too must ask, are you serious?
It's good for you that you have only experienced humble, servant-hearted pastors who are more than willing to admit error and publically correct their error to protect the flock from false teaching. I can assure you however, that this is extremely rare and I will repeat that traditional hierarchial systems work against this type of humility and accountability.
And, yet again - you throw up another straw man by saying that I suggested that everyone who opens their mouth in a church gathering is a mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. Of course we both know that is not at all what I suggested, although it's much easier to refute on your part. I was, in fact, responding to your earlier post stating, "You seem to think that if you can't express your opinion during the worship gathering, then you're being thwarted in the use of your spiritual gifts." Let me respond to this another way. Is it your understanding that only the pastor has anything of spiritual value to say during the gathering of the body of Christ?
lh
MPM,
Certainly a pastor who steals material from you without repentence should be dealt with by the church. That doesn't make the office of pastor unbiblical, that just illustrates that pastors can and do sin.
Members of a church should have a confession of faith that they agree on generally, for how can two walk together unless they agree (Amos 3:3)? And how can they be of one mind, all thinking the same thing (1 Cor.)? The point I made about going to a charismatic church when you disagree with the doctrines that characterize them is that to do so would be foolish. If you know a church holds to Calvinism, don't attempt to join such a fellowship when you reject Calvinism. That is stirring disunity among that body of believers. And Calvinism isn't a cult, please refraim from such perjorative terms.
And finally, you and Ih keep getting confused about my point with regard to Buddhism and JWs, so let me state it again. You said that I had to experience the organic church, that I had no frame of reference for making a judgment. Then I said that *my frame of reference* was Scripture. I don't need to *experience* something to know whether or not it is *biblical*. I only need to consult Scripture to determine that. *For example* I don't need to attend a Kingdom Hall to know that the form of worship that takes place there is unbiblical. Therefore, I don't need to attend an organic church either to determine whether or not it is biblical. I'm not saying organic church members are not Christians, nor am I saying their Buddhists or JWs. I hope that is clear enough.
What I'm looking for hear is the *biblical* argument for the house church position, and so far the only attempt to even deal with the Bible is your one argument that the word "pastor" only appears once in the NT. That's it. The rest is emotion.
If you're going to win my conscience on the matter, you're going to have to do it with Scripture.
Best, AR
Ih,
The fact that the word for "pastor" only occurs in the NT once was put for by MPM as an argument against the office of pastor, so I addressed that argument. Perhaps you missed it.
You said:
Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
So, if you're not suggesting what I said, please explain. What exactly did you mean?
Best, AR
Ih,
I failed to respond to this one:
"Is it your understanding that only the pastor has anything of spiritual value to say during the gathering of the body of Christ?"
During the sermon, yes, because only one person can preach at a time. Afterward, no.
RE: Scripture - How many times does it have to be said? I am not going rewrite Viola's book here, nor am I going to take the time to retrieve it for you. Spend $15.00, get it yourself, and read it. It is chocked full of all the scripture you will ever need, and gives every *biblical* reference you need. Furthermore, I am no longer interested in try to "win your conscience". I don't think you have any real interest in knowing the real truth or you would have read the book yourself already.
You also said, "If you know a church holds to Calvinism, don't attempt to join such a fellowship when you reject Calvinism." You don't have to worry about that. Been there, done that, was raped and pillaged. I've seen first hand the "grace" of Calvinism you allude to, and the corporate veil behind which they operate. I have seen Calvinism mar one person after another, and cause total confusion in their walk with Christ. To me, it is indeed a CULT. I would almost bet my life that you're defense of Calvinism is met with far more vigor than it would be of Christ himself. The very fact that you jumped to its defense like you did proves my point, as I have witnessed time and again by Calvinist. As a matter of fact, my guess is that is why you are so stubborn, and unwilling to do what any reasonable person would do truly understand what is being discussed here is your Calvinism.
Hmmm...must be "predestined."
Everything you're saying is a repeat of what you said before.
You're on a merry go 'round.
It seems Calvinists are always on the same merry go 'round.
I'm done with this. When you have read the book, experienced organic Christianity, and then posted I'll invest more time.
However, as it stands not interested.
Take care of yourself, MPM
Also, the way I have seen the way Calvinism handled is cultish. John Calvin would have nothing to do with what so many have done with his name
MPM,
I didn't say a word about defending Calvinism, nor did I state my position either way. I just asserted that Calvinism is not a cult. Tender spot with you, I guess.
"Reimagining Church" is on back order until next month. Guess I'll have to wait until then. However, in seeking to defend a theological position, especially one that is the *real truth*, "just read the book" doesn't usually convince your opponent. A biblical defense should be easily mounted for such truth.
Be that as it may, we shall dismount.
Take care,
AR
AR, Is it your understanding that when your pastor speaks, is he simply offering his opinion? I take it you don't differentiate between Spirit-led admonishment, songs, hymns, words of encouragement - and - personal opinion.
Common courtesy dictates that when one "has the floor". others listen without rude interruption. Within the body of Christ our Head, should only one man "have the floor" week after week, month after month, year after year?
I think I'll have to agree with MPM that until you read Viola's books or visited an organic/house church, your understanding of this whole concept is greatly limited. It is probably futile to keep up this discussion. But, it's been interesting. God bless!
lh
AR, do want to clarify a few things, most of which is sorrow for bowing out like I did.
Yea, the PCA and Calvinism is a sore spot. That much was made evident. It entailed the demise of my marriage, and the alienation of my five lovely children. I have seen first hand the wort part of the PCA and Calvinism, and want nothing at all to do with it.
I am also guilty of jumping to conclusions on your theological stand. My guess was you hold to the Calvinist view. You didn't clarify. However, that is moot now. Please forgive me for jumping the gun.
Also, your next to last post to me was you're needing biblical reference. I said for you to get the book, and then you respond saying reading a book doesn't necessarily do it - when the book has all the biblical references. It's like one excuse breeds another. I feel like Rush Limbaugh talking to liberal. That is used on as an illustration of great the divide is here.
Here's my question: What won you to Christ? How much info did you need? What experiences touched your heart? Who did you need to hear from? Did you go on and on asking for this and that over and over, and then it finally hit home? What was it?
Forget about the organic church. Just tell me what it would really take to truly sway you on anything in your life.
Again, I did not reenter this dialogue to win you to the organic church. It is was mainly because I am sorrowful for ending like I did on a possible false assumption about you, and once I got back in touched back on the subject again.
I think you will enjoy the book, and learn a great deal from it. I know there are some free downloads at www.ptmin.org of Viola's book.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts when you're done with it.
Best, MPM
Oops, there are free downloads of a couple of chapters of the book, not the book itself.
MPM
MPM,
I'm sorry for the painful experiences you mentioned above, I really am. And forgiveness granted, of course.
To simply answer your question, God used a campus Bible study on the book of Romans to first begin to work savingly in my heart. That lead me to the church I attend as the Bible study was conducted by one of the deacons. Then I heard the preaching of God's word on a regular basis, the faithful opening up of Scripture. I became convicted of my sin, saw serious discrepancies between my own life and what it says in Scripture, saw that my motives for doing things was self-centered, and by God's grace I called upon His name and He saved me and gave me a new heart.
So what it would really take to sway me on this issue (or any other, for that matter) would be a compelling biblical case for the position. As a sinner, I can't trust my feelings, but judge my experiences in the light of Scripture.
I intend to read "Reimagining Church" when it arrives in the mail. Perhaps we'll discuss this issue again....
God bless,
AR
Frank, I beleive God has brought what you have done to my attention, to save me from denying my faith altogether. I thought for the last 2 years that there was something wrong with me, and why I lost my desire to serve Him and love Him like I first did. I am just so bored of "churchianity" , and ready to get back to the basics. Thank you so much for being obedient to the Lord, all the glory and honor be to Him. I will continue to pray for you, and all of us who want to live out Christ's life in real living form.
God Bless and peace be to you and yours!
Aaron and all you others out there. Look guys, you ain't the only enlightened ones here on the planet. God doesn't speak to just you. Frank wrote a book and you have a differnet opinion than his. Fine. Leave it at that. Every single one of you are sitting here telling the other person that you know more scripture than the other. ALL OF YOU MISS THE MARK! Get out and help the hungry, the homeless, the orphan, the widow, and stop worring about a stupid book. And Aaron, you treated Bob, the "unbeliever" like a piece of crap. No wonder Frank has to right a book like this. No wonder we live the unChristian faith. It's treating people like they are garbage that pushes them away from our faith. It's not the truth many of the times but how we treat them. You gave Bob the unbeliever even more reason to hate us, because once again, we didn't accept him. So he wondered into a Christian forum, we should welcome him like Christ would. Jesus would never have told little Zachy in the tree that "perhaps you should know a thing or two about the subject..." I don't care what the lack of knowledge an unbeliever has, we don't just treat him like trash. If anyone else replies to this again, please make it an apology and a committment to move on and BE THE CHURCH not play it. And Bob, I apologize for my christian family members in the way they treated you. I promise, Jesus would never treat you like this and turn you away. He does love you. I promise.
*revision- It's not the truth that makes people turn from the gospel all the time, but the way we treat them. ( sorry got carried away with fingers)
Aaron, you wrote;
"The lack of properly qualified leadership was probably the reason the Corinthian church was so disorderly."
If that was actually the case, then it was the ONLY thing that Paul didn't address in the two epistles to the Corinthians that we have.
It is significant that Paul did not make it the responsibility of the "leadership" of the Corinthian church to solve the problems and whip the membership back into shape.
T
Micah,
If someone is going to make ignorant claims, I'm going to challenge them on it. If "Bob the unbeliever" wants to wander into a Christian web site to sling bombs, I'm going to deal with him in a certain way. If he enters into a discussion because he really wants to learn what the faith is all about, I'm going to deal with him in another way. And in case you didn't notice, Bob the unbeliever wasn't looking to learn about the truth as it is in Jesus. He's a mocker of the faith. Does God accept unrepentant mockers?
Be that as it may, I didn't treat him like trash at all. I just didn't coddle him. If Bob felt I mistreated him in any way, let him speak for himself...
Tom,
There are plenty of things Paul didn't address in the Corinthian epistles, so that's no argument against the lack of properly qualified leadership there.
And Paul didn't make it the responsibility of the "leadership" there to solve the problems and "whip the membership into shape" as you perjoratively put it because there was a *lack* of leadership. Besides, biblically qualified leadership isn't the answer to every problem the church experiences.
Best, AR
Thank you for sharing your testimony. I'm in the process of reading 'The Normal Christian Life', by Watchman Nee for the 2nd time. I've been dissatisfied in church for a number of years, and like you just going through the motions. It seems to me in my experience that the church focuses on performance and knowing about scripture instead of coming into a complete understanding of Who God is, and how does He view me. Some years back I started praying to know God and asking Him to reveal Himself to me. It seems I have grown more at home with my understanding of God than anything I ever heard in a church. I have yet to hear a sermon in church explaing the full substitutional work of Jesus Christ. In fact, when I go to church I usually leave feeling frustration because I feel that what I'm hearing isn't lining up with what scriptures are saying. I feel that the pastor is trying to 'whip' me into shape. Yes I hear that God loves me, but it is a vague explanation that leaves me unfulfilled. It's because the english word 'love' doesn't convey God's unconditional, and relentless pursuitent of us type of love. I have found out the hard way it doesn't do any good to explalin this to people. They look at you with deer in the headlight type of look, unless they are desparate like I was to know God. Then they drink in every word. My scholaring son, like you read church history, and has shared some of his knowledge on that front with me. My question is, do we continue to stay in these churches starving for sermons about Who Jesus is? And if we do stay, do we try to buck the system, and cause discord? Or do we quietly leave? If we choose to leave, what do we do? If it was just me, I'd leave in a heartbeat. I'm that sick of it. But I have two children still at home. I feel it's important that for their sake we forsake not the gathering together with believers. I know these people love Jesus, and are loving towards my family. There are those, like us hungering for a fuller understanding of what salvation is. It's more than just making it into heaven after we die. I could go on and on. Just wanted to say thank you. I plan on reading your book
Man, you are incredibly astounding. Keep up the fire. I pray to my father to give many more people your kind of knowledge and expose. I have been a pastor, a general overseer, a deacon and what have you but no fulfilment until i started out as a watman and market place minister. It has extended my understanding of God to the extent that the closer i think i am to Him to more ignorant i feel i am of Him. God bless you.
Frank, Thank you for your testimony. I was taught that devils don't act like that, that such things are only what Hollywood movies are made of. I was taught that according to Acts 19:13 (KJV), the vagabond Jews mentioned were using a devil spirit named the Lord Jesus to cast out devils, but Jesus asked, "How can Satan cast out Satan, and a house divided against itself can not stand."
I don't think darkness casts out darkness, rather darkness is dispelled by that which is light.
Their answer to the question How can Satan cast out Satan? ......It just takes a bigger devil spirit to cast out a smaller one.......I think if they tried that in heaven, that maybe the Lord might tap them on the head with a rolled up scroll or something.
I wonder if anybody ever saw one of the devils named the Lord Jesus? If they did, I wonder , was wearing a name tag or something? I wonder if they have ever cast out a devil named the Lord Jesus in the name of the Lord Jesus? It doesn't add up.
I think the Jews mentioned in Act 19:13 (KJV) were some whose character was a bit less than magnificent, yet they cast them out by faith using the name of the Lord Jesus.
I suppose if we are not walking right in Christ, not wearing the whole armor of God, God might allow us to be overcome so that we might learn to walk circumspectly, and overcome.
RB
Just wanted to add my bit. I grew up in a quasi house church movement - the Plymoth Brethren. When we 'went to church' it was in a building, but there was no order of service, there was no one up the front and a pastor was unheard of. We had elders who were the leadership as it were.
The services were quite free - from the age of 14 I would pray, read the bible, and somtimes make a short devo/comment on what I just read. We did have a sermon though, and it was in these times I learnt a lot (although alot wasn't all that great either). But nonetheless, nearly everyone would hang around after the service and have lunch together. People would just chat about life and would often engage in what was talked about in the sermon. There was about 50-60 people in the chuch all up. We also had mid-week meetings.
One thing that does stand out to me now is that when ever someone needed help - it was there. If someone was moving house, everyone would help. THere always seemed something going on with someone in the church who would need a hand.
Now where I grew up, this movement has all but failed. Why, to a large extent they became elitist - their way was better.
I have been part of the 'institutional church' for about 10 years now. I love it. I don't just come in and get my lift and go. My two biggest influences in reconciling my past and present have been N T Wright and Tim Keller. While the institution has not always got it right (sometimes deadly wrong), there are some great things about her. I will be interested to see what the house church movement looks like in the fourth generation. My guess is that it will be like what I grew up in. Some really good underlying principles, but vastly deep cracks that - often become irreparable.
Daniel
I just want to say a big hearty "AMEN BROTHER". It is as though you wrote my testimony...my story....For years I have been saying the same things about traditional churches....I have been born again now for over 30 years, and the more I get into the Word of God, the more I learn and see TRUTH! Jesus said the "truth" will set us free....the tradional churches keep God's people in BONDAGE. The Lord told me that His Body is sick, that the churches were prostituting His Word and He was sick of it! It's time that preachers quit building THEIR Kingdom and started building GOD'S Kingdom. WE, God's people, are the CHURCH (or are supposed to be), not some building!
I was recently in a church and heard a "so called prophet" from Africa saying that if we gave all the money we had for the building of this preacher's "church", God would heal us and keep us alive in famine or distress! He told everyone who could give their life savings, their 401Ks, and their children's inheritence--- for the building of this big church in the city, to come forward and he would pray a special prayer for them! I WAS APAULED!! I couldn't believe my ears. In other words, we would be blessed ONLY if we would give all of our money for the building of this "church"! What about the people in that church who are about to have their lights turned off, or they need rent money to keep from being evicted, or a widow who needs her grass mowed, or a mother who can't feed her children because her husband walked out on them and she has no job????? What about those people who give and give and they are told that they are "cursed" because they don't give the preacher 10% of their income, which, in reality and truth, they are the ones robbing God for doing and preaching this! I met a girl at my mother's yard sale who gave me a copy of your book, "Pagan Christianity".......I was blown away....Everything that Holy Spirit had been telling me.....was in your book!!!! Thank you again, Frank, and I pray God's blessings on you and your family!!
The Gospel of the Kingdom is obviously NOT what the traditional institutional churches are focused on. They are not focused on making disciples who practice, in appropriate leading from the Holy Spirit, disciplines ("...abstain from the fleshly lusts that war against the soul.") that enable them to obey Jesus.
They are focused on growing (getting more attendees/members either professing Christians or those who are not). I know, because I'm part of a "church" plant right now. But I remain so I can learn patience, humility, and how to suffer like Jesus. One of my mentors, a well-known writer on spiritual formation said to to a small church group, "The church is there to make you suffer." Obviously, we know what he means. He does not mean the called-out-people of God.
I could leave and start a house church, but I doubt I'm really ready for that. We need to bless people like Frank and others saying what they are, because I was with them for a very LONG time. Through my late teens and early twenties, I was truly disgusted with the institutional churches. I do not think this is a good place to be. I go into the institutions to serve. But I am well aware of the truncated gospel lived out there. Praise God that he calls us to die with His Son! And Praise God for those who loudly proclaim and live the words, "The church is NOT a building!"
God bless, Sam
A friend of mine once said, "rats leave the ship, captains strive to save it" I choose to remain because I still believe the Church is too divine to be human, though too human to be divine. It is the conduit I believe God continues to use to reach the world, flawed as it may be.
This article is proof that emergent needs to be entertained, because they are bored. Emergent wants to be entertained because it is a replacement for lack of intimacy with God. If they would go to church for the right reason they would not feel compelled to emerge. This is due to lukewarmness.
If they were on fire they wouldn't care where they were attending church, or what kind of music or traditions. If emergent had an Spiritual experience with God's manifest presence they would not be searching for the excitement of the colored lights, candles, incense, power points, techo music, thundering through the newest fancy digital board and speakers systems.
Also these 100 member churches trying to act like they are mega Churches are silly. This is the extremism of emergent folks. It's about creating this man made worshipful atmosphere, instead of crying out for the presence of God. Also emergent does "series" on gnostic philosophy based on the bible instead of pure biblical discipleship.
One real touch from God and you won't care about emerging anymore. The fact is, emergent is just as dry, if not dryer, than the church you left, but of course it is more entertaining. All the churches in America trying to be a miniature Hillsong is not emerging, it's cloning.
MJC is assuming that the "ship" = "the church." Just because something calls itself "a church" does not mean it is really an ekklesia. Ekklesia is defined by dynamic functioning, not by outward marks. As Ralph Neighbor pointed out, "I think it is theologically correct to say that if a group of Christians who assemble don't have certain characteristics as their criteria and their foundation, they aren't a real church in the biblical sense" (unpublished manuscript). The truth is, the ship that a lot of people are jumping out of is not "church," but an institution infested with human traditions that have nullified God's Word. As has been said by others, people are leaving "churches" in droves, not because they are losing their faith, but in order to preserve and practice their faith. To identify all those who choose to leave as "rats" is hardly fair, and is a judgment that is insensitive to the realities people face in many institutional churches.
Just in the last couple of years the Lord has led me into a new church which does NOT fit all my ideas of an ideal church, but God has been ministering to me, and chipping away at some of my rough edges, and the more of my own failings that are exposed, the more I find that God has provided some ministry in my church (sometimes just the right individual) to help me heal or repair that need. The 'institutional church' of the 21st Century is woefully short of the image of the "Bride of Christ" that is described in the New Testament. For that matter, it is far short of the "Priesthood of Believers" described in the Old Testament.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to remember that it was a very corrupt Roman Catholic Church that brought the gospel to the point where Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg. It was a corrupted Anglican Church that brought/sent much of the Good News to America. It has always been grossly inadequate, imperfect churches that have sent our missionaries and pastors into a world even more hungry for the word of God, and it is always a loving, caring God who has used yeilded people in a very inadequate 'church' to do the work of the kingdom.
God is continuing to use us, such as we are, until He returns. I sincerely believe he has begun to prune, prod, and prepare his bride in a way we've barely seen in the past, but it will always be the Groom that is perfect, and a bride that is only acceptable, by His Grace.
Frank,
Unfortunately, it sounds like you have absolutely no idea why God raised up the Apostle Paul. You don't understand Paul's epistles and can not relate them to why the early Acts Church died out. In other words you apparently don't understand II Tim. 2:15 "...rightly dividing the Word..." In addition, you apparently may not have any dispensational theology to help you understand why Mark 16:15-20 no longer applies to the church of today.
In Christ, Max
Dorothy has seen the wizard, and she has 4 possible choices:
1. Run away, completely. (the faithleaver) 2. Run away, but stay in the orbit of the idea. (the runningprophet) 3. Stand still, and do nothing. (the silentbystander) 4. Run to the wizard, see yourself as part of the "we," and help fix a gift that could be beautiful once again (the hopegiver)
I've come to believe that God is not afraid of historical process nor human process; we however, are deeply suspect of both.
Over the course of thousands of years, the containers have been many, and have often shaped the content of our beliefs as the Church. Guilt by association can follow, and a desire to distance ourselves rises to the surface in the face of the inadequacies marring the landscape of an otherwise helpful scene.
Frank, you've chosen the path of 2., and I wish you all the best. Tell us who we are, who the world sees us to be. But for the love of all things holy, allow the Church to be human, and to move through time and culture as sojourners.
I however, choose the path of 4. I see the whole shebang as the "we," and I'll work within as long as I have breath.
John Zens,
Is it equally insensitive and unfair to label those Christians who maintain that a typical Baptist or Presbyterian church is a biblical expression of ekklesia as a bunch of human traditionalists who nullify the Word of God?
Sorry, Jon Zens (misspelling was unintentional)
Jill,
You're a fruit loop...
Whether a part of the institutional church or not, one need only follow the life and teachings of Jesus and accept Him in a personal relationship. Still then, we know little about God compared to what we don't know. Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to edify, inspire and guide, but we don't do that, because that gets into the way of our personal opinions and biases. Keep the conversations going but please work to let them reflect your understanding of God through Jesus Christ, not Paul, not Barnabas, not Timothy and not even Peter and not even scripture which we become so idolatrous about. When and if we get to Heaven, I am positive we will all be surprised!
Aaron, Why am I not shocked by the fact that you are "Reformed"? All of you seem to be arrogant/angry all the time...and of all things...the things of God. What a shame!
brock
Brock,
I'm not sure what you mean. Would you care to quote me or provide an example of "arrogance" or "anger"? Or are you simply upset that I pointed out an area of hypocrisy in the house church movement?
What a shame!
Aaron
Actually, Aaron what amazes/scares me is the fact that you have been monitoring this one particular post for the last two months flexing your theological/intellectual muscles with anyone who responds to you. You must check it many times a day, day after day...how long will it go on? And how many more places in cyberspace are you engaged in this type of edification of Jesus' Body? It truly is amazing. Do you have a job, a wife, kids, ministry? Or is this all you do?
Brock
You got it Brock! This is all I do.....
I do it as often as you, apparently
No Aaron "apparently" you do it much more. My humble 3 times cannot hang with your mastery of the post. Nice try though...oh , also, I noticed that your response to my 2nd was like 10 minutes after. I can just picture you there hovered over your keyboard waiting like a lion to pounce. Halloweeny you are!
brock
Actually Brock, that was providence. I happened to log in a few minutes after you made your comments. Now, if you have something of substance to say, by all means do. But if you just want to bicker in the sandbox, I'll leave you to the sand.
Best,
AR
Perhaps some of that arrogance I mentioned before?
i've read the books and i study the Book - institutional or organic, organic or institutional ? Will and do men abuse power? yes Does that mean ALL men abuse power? No Will theydo it organically or institutionally? Yes on both accounts, witness.
Could the question possibly be asked, when did "what you become" turn into an office or title? being and desiring a noble task of overseer (pastor) can indeed be a humble function of leadership in the Body or can indeed become a place of pious, manipulative, and controlling "position or office" that receives a salary. Our biggest enemy is our selfish desire and our lack of trusting in God who will provide our every need.
My history - 8 generations of ministry family (as far as I've traced so far), seen the good, the bad, the ugly. Does that disqualify humble men in the mix? God is still God and can use a jackass if he desires, did one time in the OT and that man ignored. Could be using one right now ......
Is there something wrong with our systems? yes Does anyone have all the correct interpretive answers? don't think so So how do we move forward? By loving and preferring - ah yes, heard that one before ... from the King.
My Title is son, my Function is teacher, my Name is Styrling. No one need call me Teacher Styrling, Pastor Styrling out of "reverence". Styrling will do just fine since that's my name and not looking to be respected - God will test all of me and has begun already.
Emotion is very difficult to read through words on a page - we should all be careful in our assumptions, talk on the phone and you will be able to carefully judge "tone".
Quite an interesting blog conversation, that's for sure - Aaron, would enjoy talking offline, via email, phone etc. I don't think I've ever suspected anyone in the Body of Christ that enjoys their weekly fellowship as much as you "seem". Just a suspicion, don't hold me to that if you'll indulge.
I have not read the book, I have not read all the comments...as some of them seem rather convoluted and traditional! but thans Frank for being so frank..you are not the only one who has 'left' the organised church to preserve you faith. I grew up as a Missionary Kid, latter I spent 20 years as a missionary myself, and until 4 years ago attended church regualarly..Then I had a major operation and for the second time in the time of greatest need I found myself alone, with non christian friends showing more compassion than anyone, apart from the organised churches I had been attending, and almost any of my 'mission' colleagues. Suffering seemed to scare the christians into staying away or they were so busy with activity that they have not thought about the fact that I miss fellowship, worship and hearing the word of God....but could not sit in the long services..was in too much physical pain to even get out of bed. The past 14 years have been years of God working in my life and God has not failed me yet....but I have learnt that God and any ministry should be born out of Love ....expressed....compassion....not fear of driven ness.
I am still looking for a spiritual home, but do not want to fall back into the old habit patterns of christian life= church activities and meetings...I am hungry for fellowship with those who yearn for a new and lasting expression of God's love through His Church....am yet to find a church that I feel comfortable in both physically and spiritually..till then I meet with interact via facebook with my friends who have a heart for God, I listen to the radio for sermons, I play worship CDs and am trusting God each day to be in my life...from the smallest detail to the big decisions. I have found a new ability to share my life and Jesus with my non christian friends..who come and care for me when I am unable to care for myself.
My prayer is that the church will wake and start to understand what kind of a God is being portrayed to the world...(who ask someone who has lived most of my on the missionfiel and actively contributed to church life)...is the church not meant to be there for you in your time of need.
My new found intimacy with God is precious to me...I have led more people to the Lord since I have not been so actively involved in the church activities...Perhaps the fault lies with me,( I am not naive and looking for a church that is perfect)...but perhaps God is not finished with working in my life and strengthenin my faith in Him alone....for me to be ready to rejoin an organised church.
but I want to say thank you Frank for making me aware yet again that I am not alone in my hunger for God to break through the way that churches are not fully reflecting all that God is, and that I can have the freedom to hold as precious the new faith that I have found since I have not had the opportunity to become part of a 'church'. I pray that one day I will find that place...where someone who is not able to be a typical church member not out of deliberate choice, but a result of my life situation, can be able to share without fear of discrimination and of having to fit my spiritual journey into boxes that stiffle the new way of life I have found in Jesus. Don Fransisco, thanks for all your songs...they have been instrumental in my walk with God over the years!
I hope that what I have share is not offensive..but that fellow christian leaders will perhaps hear a heart that longs to see the compassion of Christ lived out in and through His church. So that I can point my friends in the direction of a church that cares for the lost and wounded of this world not just in word but in deed.
May God be with you as you seek to love and serve Him. Rachel
I've never been to a house church, but if it's anything like what I've experienced in the following description, then I'm in for a real treat when I finally find one: I used to attend a young adults bible study group every Friday night, but it's not what we did during the bible study that would cause me to imagine what house church would look like----it's what we did AFTERWARD! After we had opened with the usual "worship time" which led to the teaching and then a couple more songs, a closing prayer, and then a meal, the night would somehow "change lanes". Here is where I get my picture of what house church must look like: Somehow, and without any pre-planning, we would all find ourselves gathering in a big circle and having beefy discussions about the Bible, what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, doctrinal issues, life issues, personal issues, etc. (and these discussions would go on for quite a while). Then we would all join hands and pray for one another (which would also sometimes last for quite a while, sometimes accompanied by tears). Then finally, someone would break out in song (usually with a guitar) and we would all start singing....and singing.....and singing.......until before we knew it, it was one o'clock in the morning and time for everyone to head home. This would happen at the end of virtually every one of our Friday night bible studies. I didn't know it at the time, but I think we were experiencing a taste of "organic church" at an institutional church bible study group! I guess there's hope for us yet!
I know the traditional church is not for everybody. I have friends who cannot step foot in the church for various reasons. For some of them, I really feel sorry for them and pray for them a lot. Our church has built a separate non-traditional, emerging type church for the young adults seeking relationships and conversations. It has cost a lot of money and the "Pastor" (who isn't ordained) is now asking for over a million dollars more. Not from us, but from the ELCA missional fund. They have attracted about 40 young adults and a few of our people go there.
In the mean time, we have attracted about the same amount of people, simply by keeping our doors open, having community dinners weekly, coffee hour, open hearts, open minds and meaningful services. It takes more than a Pastor to make a church. It takes the congregation. They are the pillars of the church. If you depend on just the Pastor to make your church a success, you will crumble.
God is everywhere. Don't put down a place where people go to worship Him. Even if you disagree, it's still worship. Jesus worshipped in Temples. He recognized the Temple as a place to worship, wo why can't we have our churches?
2 words GREAT ARTICLE!
(27)
Frank,
Thank you for sharing this.
As someone who was formerly a paid, on-staff pastor who has since left traditional church to plant a house church in my home, I can bear witness to this and say, "Amen."
Peace, Keith
Posted by Keith Giles | Posted at 08/01/2008 8:46 AMI appreciate your honesty in your post. I respect your opinions of how the institutional church is often not the greatest example of Christlikeness. However I do not agree that all institutional churches fall into this category. As a pastor myself I have experienced a strong desire from most people to be "the church." What I mean b that is most people are looking for ways to put feet to what the read, hear and study in scripture. While I know you have that same desire, and are no doubt doing a great job of building relationships that will allow you to lead other to Christ by taking care of needs, please to not paint the organized church with to broad a brush.
An organized church according to your story was instrumental in bringing you to a place where Jesus means everything to you. Maybe the question should not be what wrong with the church, but how can I help change it.
Posted by Scotty | Posted at 08/01/2008 9:16 AMI've always been fortunate to be in a community where we were busy doing the Fathers business. In my (humble) opinion many of the the dissatisfied Christians who end up leaving the church (in America), in one way or another are a victim of capitalism.
What I mean by that is some of the churches are out to provide a service or meet the needs of the people. Christians are encouraged to worship and pay tithes, but are perhaps not encouraged or equipped to do the work of ministry... which every Christian should do.
Instead we have consumer churches (which I assume you mean by "institutional"), where we have people who only come to get something, and when they are not "fed" they go somewhere else. Meanwhile they go home and cook dinner and feed themselves. Here in America we have the most well "fed" Christians on the planet, and we are doing the least in amount that we are given.
And the sad truth is that no matter what form your community may take, house church or institutional church, it can still be steeped in dead religion.
House Churches are no better, in my (humble) opinion, than any other form of Church. They both have strengths and weaknesses. As far as pagan roots are concerned... asprin has pagan roots. So that doesnt mean much to me.
Posted by Louis | Posted at 08/01/2008 11:33 PMIt's fashionable today to condmn the "institutional church" as the source of all perceived societal dissatisfactions and ills. I suppose you feel that you are speaking truth to power, but actually, you are doing nothing more than the equivalent of kicking someone who is down. It is very immature to paint such a large, well...institution, with such a big brush--and not very truthful, either. Posted by bobbobnabob | Posted at 08/02/2008 8:26 AM
I am encouraged every time I hear this story. Thanks Frank for sharing an amazing testimony of power. As an ex-clergy member, I do hope that others who read this, PC, and RC... will do so being honest with themselves about the reality of our unfaithfulness to the New Testament. But, more importantly, our unfaithfulness to Christ.
David D. Flowers free-lance writer & blogger The Woodlands, TX http://ddflowers.wordpress.com
Posted by David D. Flowers | Posted at 08/02/2008 11:28 AMAs a Christian songwriter and music minister, I've traveled the globe and witnessed perhaps every possible form of "church", from home groups to cathedrals over the last thirty-odd years. Some I experienced for a short time while travelling, and others on a more long-term basis, on staff or as one of the members. I only ran across Frank's work about four years ago, and was surprised to read his conclusions-- the same conclusions I'd reached independently.
I really enjoyed this revelation of his own journey. Such personal openness takes courage because, unfortunately, it invites attack. To those who would criticize him and his books, I suggest you examine your own motives, as Frank has examined his. How much of your anger is based on fear of loss of income, self-esteem, and the praise of men? Can you deal with the possibility that what you have built much of your life on may be wrong? What if you really need to repent-- to change your mind and your direction? Could you hear God if He told you Frank (an "uneducated" layman!) was right?
Yes, it's true that home groups can get sick and twisted, but they don't have to. Traditional hierarchical Christianity is wrong by design-- it's the exceptional church that can transcend its form and become something usable by God and meaningful to man, and it can only do so to the extent that it leaves the current model for the New Testament one. The foundation is good, but we have built with wood, hay, and stubble.
Jesus is once again cleansing His temple. Do you find yourself as one of the profiteers? It may be that you had no idea what was really going on, but now you at least have an inkling. Be like the men of Berea-- search the Scriptures to see if these things be so. You will find that they are.
Posted by Don Francisco | Posted at 08/04/2008 4:32 AMFrank, I suppose I am blessed in that the little church I attend is a lot more free-form than many churches. I get a kick out of the label "non-denominational" since almost every such church is pastored by someone who was trained in specific denominational traditions and liturgy. While my current pastor is among those trained in certain traditions, he is much more open to an organic approach in our church meetings and in our service to the congregation and the community. We're a lot more like an "Acts 2:40-47" church than the high liturgy and dogma of a Catholic church. Then again, we are a very small church.
While I agree with some of the other commenters that it is fashionable these days to attack the institutional church, I agree with you also that it is ludicrous to assert that only apostolic ordination gives one the ability to pastor to God's people. On the contrary, Jesus told his disciples that they would do more and greater things in His Name! Your experience has shown that while a background in theology and the history of the church doesn't hurt, it isn't necessary for a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
I left church in general over 30 years ago as an agnostic and returned just 3 years ago as a firm believer, and the change between the old main-line church where I was raised and the Bible-based church I now attend is dramatic and heartwarming. I have no intention to leave this church for a house church nor any other. God called me to this church (another story in itself), and I plan to stay until such time as He calls me elsewhere. But thank you for your testimony nonetheless. I pray that you and all the other folks who have left the institutional church for house churches can be moved and continue to work to glorify God in all you do.
Posted by Glenn | Posted at 08/04/2008 8:26 AMThought I'd go ahead and tell how I came to Frank's position, just as support.
My initial experience of Christianity was thoroughly denominational-- my dad was even a seminary professor. However, by my teen years I had rejected that form on every level, mistakenly searching the world for what is only found in Jesus. Then, one morning in August of 1974, God spoke to me audibly, completely changing my ideas and experience of Him. He said, "Don, this is Jesus. I love you. Why do you keep running from Me?" That was the day I stopped running.
Almost immediately, because they were the only Christians I was in touch with, I got involved in a house church. There, I learned one-on-one about the Holy Spirit, His gifts, spirituality-- and demons. Unfortunately, this particular house church became very unhealthy, as most of the groups in the "Discipleship Movement" did. When my eyes were opened to the abuses, I bailed out. For another few years I attended different churches, actively seeking a home but finding none.
Then, in 1978, I stumbled into some house churches in the South of England. I could try to describe them, but that would take too much time. Just let me say that once you've been in a meeting of believers that's run by the Holy Spirit alone, where Jesus Himself is the worship leader and the Father welcomes you before His Throne-- once you've been in meetings like that, you can't settle for empty doctrine, emotionalism, external spirituality, or anyone else's attempt to design a "worship service". Even Rodney Howard Brown's meetings couldn't touch those times.
Since that time I've studied the Scriptures and church history, and have come independently to agree with virtually everything Frank has to say. Things I haven't been able to say in my songs, Frank has said in his books.
Why I believe the institutional church needs a complete rebuild, not just version 2008.8.4, etc.: 1) The Scriptures 2) Experiencing how good a Body meeting can be when it's right, and how healthy the believers are who are part of it 3) Experiencing again and again how pointless and downright harmful hierarchical Christianity is, from continent to continent and from denomination to denomination.
I guess this little testimony is really a plea: Hear. Listen. Change: For your own sake as well as the sake of those who need to see real believers.
Posted by Don Francisco | Posted at 08/04/2008 10:21 AMI left for the same exact reason -the $. My husband and I have a small business and one day we walked into a brand new 4 million dollar building and realized it was just another business. (My husband calls it Buying Good). Then the tithing part of the service came up and a girl in front of me who was almost destitute gave a check. All I could think of was the overhead and the mortgage on that castle and how barely put together she was (she would have never been allowed to serve looking like she did-there were rules). It should have been the other way around, you know? So now I've heard that they put on another 7 million dollar addition and who, in this economy is paying it off?
As for your blog post the other day-They can't afford to give $, they're too stretched paying tithes.
Posted by Just a mouse | Posted at 08/05/2008 8:42 AMthis was an interesting post. it allowed me to re-ask just why i'm still involved with the institutional church. of all the reasons given for the inadequacy of the institutional church in the post, the most powerful was the neglect of the poor. here, much was given to us and we have much for which we must answer.
still, the fact that our theology is shallow and we far so fall from the n.t norm doesn't seem a compelling enough reason to leave. instead, i think mr. viola's most potent argument for leaving was his genuine desire to begin again, anew. i do not have the bravery to do this, and so i applaud him.
there is a dangers here, of course. christendom, while certainly dying, is not yet dead ("the wheel is still in spin" to quote the bard of the 60’s), and so any new form of church (no matter how well thought out, and no matter how ancient/future) will certainly not be the final result of this new reformation.
i’m old enough to remember (and honest enough to confess) that in the late 70’s there was this movement called “church renewal,” of which i was a part. there were authors (now forgotten) and conferences (notebooks properly placed on shelves) and the whole shebang. just like now. but, christendom buried “church renewal.” and if we’re not careful it will do the same with emergent, submergent & missional as well.
Posted by Mark Powell | Posted at 08/05/2008 11:07 AMFine article and I can really relate having left the church over 3 years ago.
A comment to Don Francisco:
You said that Frank's book puts it into words far better than your songs do - I beg to differ.
As a newborn back in 1991 - your music was one of the first that I listened to loaned to me by a friend. The song I speak of is "Adam where are you?"
That song said it all for me and unlike the myths of original sin as typically purported by the church, that song to me was not a cry just to humanity but esp. to followers/believers.
There are so many theological divergent views in circulation and although I came to the Lord by His drawing (John 6:44) via an end time ministry - much of what I experienced of phenomenal spiritual significance happened all outside of the traditional church setting.
That in itself is a looong story but needless to say I exchanged the divine one-one I had for churchianity becoming a P&W leader et al. serving on committees and sadly my biggest disappointments have been not with God but with the church that claims to represent Him. In fact even while in the ministry of P&W I neglected my studies and was in essence a backslidden person spiritually and boy did I give. :(
I came upon the concept of CU at a time when I had essentially tossed the Christendom thing and by en large was agnostic. This got me back into the word and reopened my eyes to the wonders of His kingdom.
What it has taught me is that we often look to systems, people and fallible man-made structures yet by introspection we actually discover where the Throne of God is and not some sky-god as we are essentially taught.
I tried hard to conform to the system that said "come just as you are" but then tried only to try reshape you to conform to their image.
In fact the teaching of Jesus are soo relevant today where He went against the traditions of His time and how it is still relevant today.
So I still hear God calling to ALL (believers and unbelievers) "Adam, where are you?"
Thank you Don for your inspiring music, Thank you Frank and others who dare to be different just like Jesus was/is.
Blessings
Posted by SeekerSA | Posted at 08/07/2008 1:18 AMAs I expected, you came to your position primarily through your bad church experience. Your theology followed your boredom.
Hey, I've sat through some boring sermons, but if my heart can't get stirred up when the word of God is preached, doesn't it say something about me?
I don't see open forum sharing sessions in Scripture. It's like paedobaptism, if you were left on an island with just your Bible you would never come to such a theological conclusion.
And such a meeting would be soooo unappealing. If I had to listen to every word some brother thought the Lord put in his head, argh. Hey everyone! I just wrote a song, let's all sing it! Please.
Well, I said my piece...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/08/2008 8:36 PMJust an observation. Most of the critical comments on this post seem to come from people who have not read "Pagan Christianity?" and so are making assumptions about Frank's views. I challenge those people to actually read the book with an open mind and then decide whether you think Frank's criticism of "institutional" church is fair.
And to Aaron Ronetski, I think you might have missed some of what Frank said here. In fact, you appear to have read this post with your mind made up already. "As I expected, you came to your position primarily through your bad church experience." So you found what you were looking to find. Frank talked first about his early questions about scripture and why churches weren't following it. He then talked about how those questions were never satisfactorily answered and he kept asking more. His bad experiences, if you actually read this post with an open mind, were only the last staw.
Posted by Al Newberry | Posted at 08/08/2008 10:32 PMActually Al, I have read Pagan Christianity? I understand you folks are passionate about this topic because its part of your Christian identity. You're all standing up for each other because your a maligned little group. That's fine. However, Frank's experiences are not necessarily typical of every Christian that has gone to a "traditional" church (for lack of a better term).
Simply put, the "organic" church movement is just that, a movement. It will never be predominate on the Christian landscape. Perhaps you have the freedom to embrace the open forum format (hey, Harold Camping does, as long as you listen to him), but to reintrepret Scripture to fit a square peg into a round hole isn't exactly going to bowl over 2,000 of orthodox Christianity nor the way the Holy Spirit has led the church. Do you think Christ would allow His bride to steer so far afield from the truth? I don't.
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/09/2008 8:20 PMThought correction: 3rd to last sentence should read, "2,000 years of orthodox Christianity, etc." Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/09/2008 8:23 PM
Aaron,
Actually, my comment to you was about your approaching this post with a preconceived notion of why Frank left the Institutional church. And of course, you read only what you were looking for and ignored the rest. You mentioned nothing about Pagan Christianity, so I have no way of determining your perception of it at all.
Personally, my institutional church experience wasn't negative. I came at my conclusion that it wasn't the church as God intended it via study.
As for God allowing his people to steer so far afield of the truth? One has only to look at the Jewish religion in Christ's day to answer that question.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but obviously I (and possibly Frank) believe that the institutional church are the ones who have reinterpreted scripture to fit a sqare peg into a round hole. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Al Newberry | Posted at 08/10/2008 12:21 AMAl,
I've read Frank's theological reasons for leaving what has been termed the "institutional church". Given that I think those reasons are Scripturally weak and his case unproven (as it doesn't carry my conscience), reading this post about his boredom and his "Exorcist" experience (why do they always vomit some green substance? hmm) simply confirms my suspicion--that his experience weighed more heavily in the matter than compelling Scriptural evidence.
Secondly you did say, "Most of the critical comments on this post seem to come from people who have not read "Pagan Christianity?" So, given that I made a critical comment I thought it was appropriate to state that I had read the book. Which aspect of it would you like to discuss? How about this choice quote about church steeples from pg 31, "Ever since the inhabitants of Babel erected a tower to reach to the heavens, civilizations have followed suit by building structures with pointed tops." Yeah, compelling. Church steeple=evil.
You said:
"As for God allowing his people to steer so far afield of the truth? One has only to look at the Jewish religion in Christ's day to answer that question."
You'll notice I said in my previous comment "2,000 years of orthodox Christianity", that would indicate since Pentacost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church in an event that had been prophesized in the OT. The Jewish synagogue wasn't lead by the Holy Spirit in this way, was it? Even so, Jesus told His disciples, the teachers sit in Moses seat, do as they say, but not as they do. Not to ditch the synagogue and meet in Peter's house. Be that as it may, since Frank asserts that the Reformers, the Puritans, the Methodists, etc. all made a few nice contributions but still got it wrong, do you assert that the Holy Spirit has been AWOL until He opened Frank's mind to the true truth about what He really wanted the church to do? Secrets about the church now revealed? I'm having a hard time buying that one.
No doubt, there were cultural influences on the development of the church throughout it's history. I don't deny that. However, God uses culture--it's a part of our make-up. Meeting in caves and catacombs was appropriate for the 1C church (given that they were persecuted), but meeting in church buildings in 21st century America is appropriate for our time and culture. No big evil there.
It's interesting that many will criticize the "institutional" church for being culturally irrelevant today, but then lambast it for being culturally relevant in the 1st-4th centuries. See an arbitrary inconsistency there? I do.
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/10/2008 7:11 PMDemons? And in the 21st century?
Christianity is an intelligence test. If you believe, you flunk.
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/12/2008 12:31 PMBob,
I'm not particular about the demons, but perhaps you should know a thing or two about the subject you're trying to ridicule. Why would an unbeliever be popping in to a Christian web site if you think it's so stupid? Surely with your intellect you should be on some hard science web sites mixing it up with the big boys. Assuming you're an atheist, perhaps you can justify morals in an atheistic world view? I mean, it should be easy, you being so smart and all...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/12/2008 9:48 PMBob, Many are disrupted about American Christianity especially those of us who have encountered and learned from the quiet, amazing faith of some of the "Lost Boys of Sothern Sudan" who have escaped genocide having seen and experienced the unthinkable at a very tender age and have come through it by God's mighty hand. Yes, demons are subject to the powerful name of our Lord, God Jesus Christ. Some of us realize we fall terribly short here in our country and have blasphemed the name of the Lord who has bought us with His own blood, desicrated the Sabboth and become idolatrist's in very many ways. Yes, we have neglected to use our spiritual gifts, and talents in the Kingdom of God. We've repented in such a way that we refuse divisions in the body of believers, and urge ourselves as well as others to let go of resentments to dwell in the holy moment of the great "I AM." I must say I do remember some of my pastor's anointed sermons because God showed me to respect His holy word and honor the speaking of it. Men such as John Frye, of Grand Rapids, and Holland, Michigan, and Frank Marsh. of Gowen, Michigan, have used the word of God in powerful ways in lives for over twenty-years in churches with signs and wonders through the power of God in prayer,but they have so taught their congregations to respect God that we don't get all caught up in the "signs and wonders." God has gifted men and woman exactly where they are meant to be, doing the things they are gifted to do at the time they are, within the organized church. We are members of one another for better of worse. Pull together wilth those around you. Love one another, forgive whatever grievances you have with one another all day long, every day. Dwell in God's secret place in Christ and glorify Him alone and watch souls come to know Him through the healing, gentle, merciful, gracious, holy spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord. Posted by Alice DelaRosa | Posted at 08/13/2008 1:40 PM
Aaron, You don't see 'open forum sharing sessions' in scripture? I don't see church buildings in scripture. So there. (sounds kinda adolescent doesn't it?)
Actually, the description of a worship assembly in 1 Corinthians 11 look pretty open forum to me. Also don't forget our translations sometimes color our interpretation. In Acts "Paul PREACHED til midnight?" Actually the word for preach is not the same word normally used. It's the word where we get our word "dialogue."
I'm not a big believer in demon possession either, but that victims all vomit green stuff doesn't disprove their existence. If anything it demonstrates consistency of experience.
Posted by Kyrux | Posted at 08/13/2008 2:11 PMSo, Kyrux, you believe The Exorcist was a documentary?
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/13/2008 2:48 PMAaron, my comment wasn't direct at you, but I'd be glad to hear what you believe about demons. You said, "I'm not particular about demons..." What does that mean?
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/13/2008 4:02 PMAn inspiring story. As a Christian I believe that evil does exist and is often not seen or dealt with by Christians - individually or in churches. I also do believe in exorcisms and therefore in some form of possession. I will remember your powerful testimony. But I retain a measure of skepticism. I am a health care provider and have seen my share of patients and families who, confident in their faith in Christ, assure me that mom or dad or sis have been "delivered" or healed from cancer or alcoholism or arthritis - only to show up at death's door a few months later. This is unfortunately very common.
And so I must ask you this question on behalf of myself and all the readers. Where is Derrick now and is he free of mental illness and the demons that plagued him?
Posted by Joe M | Posted at 08/13/2008 8:56 PMKyrux,
The passages you refer to from 1 Corinthians are descriptive of what took place, not prescriptive. In other words, the narrative is telling you how it was with that church, but not prescribing how things are to operate in every church through all time. The lack of properly qualified leadership was probably the reason the Corinthian church was so disorderly. Outside of that section of Scripture, you're scriptural evidence dries up quickly.
And you don't see church buildings in Scripture because that aspect of church life hadn't developed yet (not to mention such an endeavor would not have been welcome by the Roman or Jewish authorities at the time). You also don't see hymnals in Scripture, are you in favor of exclusive psalmody too?
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/14/2008 7:51 AMBob,
I'm not dogmatic about this, but I believe demon possession had a purpose at a certain time and place in history. Namely to demonstrate Christ's authority over principalites and powers, even evil ones. Christ casting out demons, or the fact that they asked Him for permission to possess the herd of pigs in Mark chapter 5, display His glory and establish his claims to be the Son of God.
Now that has been accomplished. No more need for it. No doubt, weird and unexplainable evil things still take place, things that could be attributed to "demons", but I don't jump to such conclusions or acribe such things to them. However, there is room for disagreement about this issue among Christians. In the end, it doesn't affect a whole lot with regard to the Christian faith. I just think it's odd that Hollywood's version of demon possession happens to mirror Frank's experience. Not saying it didn't happen because Frank testifies that it did, just think it's odd, that's all....
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/14/2008 8:05 AMAaron, the sequence you describe, of magical things happening in the olden days but not now, is common in the folklore of most cultures, most notably the Greek and Roman. Just like in the bible, "there were giants in those days". That obviously reflects the fact that it is mythical, never occurred, and was made up later on.
Do you or anyone have any evidence, other than movies and TV, that such a phenomenon as demons actually exist? Or is it a faith thing, no evidence needed. Or allowed.
As for Franks' tall tail, I'll assume he's just lying, taking advantage of the gullibility and ignorance of his audience, unless he has something more than his assertions to back it up. Of course I could be wrong, he could really believe his tale, but I doubt it. He's just pumping himself up.
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/14/2008 9:05 AMBob,
Apparently you're a naturalist. If evidence were provided to you, the next problem would be how you would interpret that evidence in light of your naturalistic world view. As a Christian, I'm a supernaturalist, so I have no problem believing in the spiritual activity of things I cannot see, nor do I need evidence in the manner you would require it. You discard the biblical record of giants out of hand, for example, because you don't see any giants today, and you don't consider the Bible a reliable source of information. I don't expect to convince you otherwise.
As far as Frank's testimony about his "demonic experience", I believe it happened (or at least Frank perceived it that way) because he is a Christian. Otherwise he would be bearing false witness and defiling his conscience before God. That is something a Christian cannot do unless there was corresponding repentence. Since there has been no retraction of the account, I believe his testimony (even though I don't agree with his conclusions about it)...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/14/2008 10:57 AMSo you don't have any evidence. Not surprising, since there isn't any.
You said: " .... you don't consider the Bible a reliable source of information." How can anyone, Aaron, with all the blatant inconsistencies? When even the genealogy of Jesus isn't known by the divine author of the book, his father? Matthew 1:1-16 purports to delineate the genealogy of Jesus and shows 28 generations from King David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-31 also claims to give the lineage of Jesus, but shows 43 generations from Jesus to King David. And, amazingly, only the names of David and Joseph are alike in the two accounts!
That is the inerrant word of God?
That may pass as a reliable source for Christians, but not for anyone with even minimal requirements for truthfulness.
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/14/2008 1:32 PMBob,
You said:
"So you don't have any evidence. Not surprising, since there isn't any."
Re-read what I said about what you would accept as evidence. This statement confirms my point.
As I recall, Matthew and Luke present the geneology of Jesus from different parents (that is, Luke on the maternal side and Matthew from the paternal side). So, you're rock solid objection in this case melts into lava.
However, as an unbeliever you'll find so-called mistakes in the Bible all the time...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/14/2008 1:57 PMAaron, you said: "As I recall, Matthew and Luke present the geneology of Jesus from different parents (that is, Luke on the maternal side and Matthew from the paternal side). "
Well, that may be the party line, and I can understand Christians needing one, but that is simply not true. I challenge you to read it for yourself and see what it actually says.
If there is a logical, reasonable explanation for the discrepancy I'd sincerely like to have it explained to me. No natural or supernatural world view involved here, just a straightforward question of what your book says.
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/14/2008 2:39 PMBob,
If you examine the geneologies closely you will see that I'm correct. The purpose of the geneologies is to link Christ to David to Abraham to Adam. I believe F.F. Bruce (a NT scholar) dealt with this issue in "Answers to Questions", which you can find used on Amazon.com.
Be that as it may, do you really think if such a so-called massive discrepancy (as you suggest) existed, it wouldn't be acknowledged by both those within and outside of the Christian community? Even secular academics don't assert what you say...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/15/2008 7:13 AMAaron, that's simply not true. The genealogy is as I described, is not the lineage of Mary, and the two are totally different. I don't need anyone to tell me what they say, I can read English quite well. This problem cannot be explained away, although many clumsy attempts to do so have been made.
You said, "Even secular academics don't assert what you say..." Read Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_. He first discussed this in 1794, but I doubt he was the first. It's not a new problem, and has been widely studied by both secular and religious scholars.
There are many such inconsistencies in the bible, which is surprising, since the putative author is said to be infallible. Even the bible itself proves that not to be true.
It has been an interesting little discussion, Aaron, but has no profitable future.
Don't let the demons, devils, ghosts, witches, familiar spirits, necromancers or giants which inhabit your imaginary, biblical world sneak up on you.
Bob
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/15/2008 10:48 AMBob,
Usually unbelievers need a little more than what they consider to be "name discrepancies" in geneology lists before they conclude the Bible is unreliable. I suggest you dig into it a little more by consulting the numerous commentaries on Matthew and Luke before you dismiss what I said out of hand. That is the least you can do, unless you're just looking for reasons to reject Scripture. I trust that you have the intellectual honesty to understand the orthodox Christian position from the appropriate sources instead of holding to stock objections found in "The Atheist Reader".
Thanks for the interaction and your concern for my well-being...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/15/2008 11:22 AMFrank,
I experienced a deliverance almost identical to what you describe here in your post. The institutional church does not get it when it comes to true spiritual warfare. My deliverance went on for about 4 hours. More than once, the demons tried to choke me to death. Fortunately, I had an experienced person praying for me. If you need to get in touch with people who REALLY know what they're doing in this area, contact me. I'd love to introduce you to my friends. Some of the things we've seen and been through are simply amazing.
With best wishes,
dm
Posted by DM | Posted at 08/15/2008 5:44 PMAfter reading all the comments I realize why I left the institutional Church. It was all the pseudo philosophers and men's intellect that caused the problems with the Church being so messed up today. So 2000+ years we are still arguing about simply stupid and vain intellect. Only the intellect of the Holy Spirit who points to the real Jesus Christ will solve our differences. My advise is this. Simply don't argue with an idiot. Don't argue period. Jesus simply did what the Father said to do and ignored those He offended. Jesus Christ is the end of all discussion and arguement. That is if you love others as yourself. Don't defend yourself, Christ simply will do that for you. So with division continuing on I wonder if we will ever see each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord. I just want to see Jesus in others and hopefully they will see the Jesus in me. Doctrines of men be damned. May all glory go towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Love to all the brethren. Posted by bill ziegler | Posted at 08/16/2008 3:42 PM
Well Bill, that sounds very pious and all. Don't know what it really has to do with the "institutional church" since apparently you organic church folks can argue about points of disagreement as well. I wasn't "arguing with an idiot", I was having a discussion with an unbeliever. Perhaps what was spoken will lead him to further study the issues he's having a problem with, and perhaps the Lord will use this as a means to lead him to Himself. I hardly considerate it loving others as I love myself to let unbeliever's questions and/or arguments go unanswered because, well, "doctrines of men be damned". What doctrines would those be exactly? The harmony of the gospels? Diety of Christ? Or are you rather saying "doctrine doesn't matter"? It does to Jesus, He spent a lot of time teaching it... Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/16/2008 9:45 PM
Aaron, you might want to take a look at what some of your fellow demon apologists have been up to. Goodbye, Javon.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/16/6474116-ap.html
Posted by Bob | Posted at 08/17/2008 2:54 PMI really appreciated this article. Thanks for telling us your story. I read your article on your blog http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/stripping-down-to-christ-alone-rethinking-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ and it made reading your experience with the demon possession easier to understand. Posted by William | Posted at 08/17/2008 3:55 PM
Oh brother. Let me say it again but louder, OH BROTHER! Is this the best you can do to justify your efforts to further divide the body of Christ. Just a bunch of subjective whining by one more person who has figured out the way thing are "supposed to be" and is determined to correct all the idiots out there that think their church is just fine. Do we really need another try at getting it right. What if I get bored with your version. Will my dissent be just as justified as yours?
The Church will always be in need of revival and sometimes even reform but it will never need a "do over"! I did read your book and it is deeply disturbing the way you make a case that so neatly fits the preconceptions you brought with you to the book . Satan is the author of schism. "The Church is the pillar and ground of truth", not your experience.
Posted by Dave Michie | Posted at 08/18/2008 10:11 AMI have read many of Frank's books and articles over the past two years. I have also read multiple responses to Frank's writings on various blogs and websites. I find a couple of things in common among them: Those who are critical often seem to take his statements out of their context, they often seem to take personal offense to what has been written or discussed, and they often sound angry. None of these things seem to agree with the Scriptures.
I am profoundly thankful to Frank for having been the instrument the Lord has used to set me free from a lifetime of bondage to an old and irrelevant wineskin, and to help me see a picture of the true and beautiful Bride of Jesus. And, more than that, I am experiencing a vibrant and exciting relationship with Jesus that I never dreamed of - and this after "knowing" Him for most of my life! There is nothing that can compare.
Posted by Howie Cruthers | Posted at 08/19/2008 1:18 PMWell Howie, Christians usually take offense when someone attacks what they understand to be the Bride of Christ and assert that Christ REALLY meant for the church to be "organic" sharing sessions. Christians usually love to hear the Word of God preached, so they take offense when someone asserts that the sermon is detrimental to body life. Usually Christians love and appreciate their pastors, so they take offense when someone asserts that according to the Bible there really shouldn't be any pastors. I could go on, but I think you get the point. If they sound angry, it's because Frank makes dogmatic statements about the errors he sees in the "institutional church" (which takes many forms, by the way, so such a blanket statement is simplistic) without much biblical material to back up his statements. It's no different than you "organic" church folks get when someone attacks your understanding of what the Bride of Christ is or should be.
I'm glad you're experiencing a vibrant and exciting relationship with Jesus, so am I. I am profoundly grateful for my little Baptist church. And I don't need to sit in my uncle's living room and spontaneously sing praise songs and listen to what everybody thinks the Bible says to have such a relationship with my Lord and Savior.
Now, if you care to actually deal with Scripture, I'm game. Let's hear the biblical defense of open forum sharing sessions as the normative feature of the church throughout all time. All I've heard thus far here and in other places is a lot of emotionalism with little substance.
I would allow for differences among brethren. If you would like to say that you agree with Frank's understanding of what the church should be, that's fine by me. But when you say (or anyone else) that the church should be, and only be, what Frank says it should be, well then I have a problem with such thinking...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/20/2008 6:05 PMAaron, you are responding to one short article as if it were making a complete case for each point. That's really silly. The biblical arguments that answer your question are laid out in Pagan Christianity by Frank and George Barna and the sequel Reimagining Church which has an entire chapter on the kind of meetings they are espousing. The biblical arguments are in the sequel and their case is very strong. Read those books then you can speak intelligently on where and why you disagree. Incidentally both books define what they mean by institutional church and organic church. Posted by Jim | Posted at 08/20/2008 6:22 PM
Aaron, In nearly all of your comments you come across as sarcastic and arrogant . I'm wondering if that distracts greatly from whatever points you're trying to make. Posted by lh | Posted at 08/20/2008 7:23 PM
Jim,
I've read Pagan Christianity, which part would you like to discuss?
Ih,
I don't think so, but thanks...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/20/2008 7:40 PMCan't get enough of the truth that is coming forth from Frank Viola's work. I'm reading Reimagining Church for the third time in the last three weeks. Having been abused in churches repeatedly by professional pastors I have seen the worst of it. In short, I have built ministries as a "lay" leader only to have the robbed professionals take them away after they were successful, and then run them into the ground. I will not lay my pearl before these swine ever again. They only turn, and tear you to pieces.
These books have simply given confirmation as to why the abuse is so prevalent. Further, NOVA, (National Association of Victims of Abuse), lists pastors as the profession, along with the military and police as the ones perpetrating the highest incidence of spousal abuse. Why? It's all about power and control. The "power" given to the "top" man is transferred into the home. It is coupled with the abhorrent twist to scripture that they are "anointed", and are to be "submitted" to.
The truth, the real truth, about what is happening in the church is only being scratched. I see this as a revolution, and revolutions for the most part are wars. This war is between the "laity" and the "clergy". It is the battle to overthrow, turn back the lie.
The traditional institutional church is a lie built off the Roman's flim flam when they developed and embued a class, the professional clergy, with an imbalance of power, and put the church in cathedrals. The lie has been built off that foundation, and handed down for centuries. The facts don't lie. It astounds me that the truth, when penned in black and white and documented with historical accuracy as Viola has done is not distributed to every one in the church. The problem is the conditioning is so deep it will take a massive effort spread out over a long period of time.
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/20/2008 10:10 PMAaron, Pagan Christianity is just an introduction. All it does mainly is trace most church practices in Christendom and shows historically that the way we practice them isn't based in the bible. The issues you raise here are addressed in the constructive follow up Reimagining Church. That's where the positive vision is laid out and the biblical arguments are found. I read it in two days and it's one of the best books on ecclesiology I've ever read. Leonard Sweet, Alan Hirsch, and Shane Claiborne are among my favorite authors. When I saw their glowing endorsements on the book, I bought it right away. Reading Pagan Christianity without reading Reimagining Church doesn't give you the whole picture at all. You just get the first part of the story, the negative side. Read Reimagining Church and get the complete picture. As I told you, one chapter answers your challenge about gatherings as well as the difference between institutional church and organic church. Posted by Jim | Posted at 08/21/2008 5:22 AM
Thanks Jim, I intend to pick that up. Even so, if Viola intends to break down the "institutional church" he's going to have to do it from Scripture--not just his skewered conclusions based upon his limited use of historical data. It's interesting that he is happy to quote Will Durant (a pagan who hated Christianity and is going to slam the church whenever he can) in order to support his position. He also quotes men like JC Ryle and John Stott who rightly condemn holding to traditions without examining them by Scripture, but who certainly wouldn't lock arms with him in condemning the "institutional church" as both are Anglicans.
Mr. Viola has no problem, it seems, using whatever source he can to make his position seem objective. The fact is, it's not objective--it's his personal (if not misguided) conviction.
But I will read "Reimagining Church" when I get the book and some time, since it's Frank's theological defense of his position. However, I must admit I doubt his theological acumen can match Calvin, Luther, etc., or the modern scholarship of O'Brien, Schreiner, Frame, Moo, Carson, Poythress, Reymond, etc. etc....
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/21/2008 6:14 AMIh,
Do you think MPM's little rant was gracious or arrogant? He or she was stymied by the pastor, must be that all pastors are evil, right?
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/21/2008 6:18 AMAaron, no one can change your opinion but I disagree with it and so do many others. Pagan Christianity was cowritten with George Barna who is one of the best researchers in the country. It's also been endorsed by many theologians and scholars. You can read them all at http://www.paganchristianity.org
The authors have also answered common questions at http://www.ptmin.org/answers.htm , I'm glad you're going to read Reimagining Church. I thought it was a great book and makes a persuasive case.
Posted by Jim | Posted at 08/21/2008 6:47 AMJim,
I've got the book, so I've read the accolades on the dust jacket. The "theologians and scholars" that praise the book are a group of no names in Reformed circles. I mean some of these folks publish a house church newsletter and wrote a book or two, so I'm not impressed with their approval or their credentials for making such an evaluation. They already hold to an "organic" church position, so I expect them to endorse the book. What does Westminster think of Barna's research though?
I'll check on the ptmin.org web site you mentioned, thanks
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/21/2008 8:20 AMMore "Ranting" from MPM
From Christianity to...Churchianity to...Insanity
It is said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again thinking you will get different results. If that is the case then the question needs to be seriously asked: Has the church has gone totally insane? You see, after the Romans usurped the power from the church by siphoning it out of the home, and placing it into buildings led by the professional clergy we have been stagnant and going slowly down hill ever since starting with the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, even since the Enlightenment there is still little giving evidence we are out of the dark.
Certain renowned Christian leaders and scholars like A W Tozer concur: "Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society's own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender."
That statement was made some forty years ago, and all one has to do is look at the culture in America, a supposed Christian nation, to see A W Tozer hit the nail on the head. Today, the difference is we have totally surrendered, but unfortunately, not to Christ, but to the world around us, and their smiles are widening.
Further, if we truly have the power of Christ in us, can look at the present conditions in our culture, and then continue doing the same things thinking there will be true transformation...well then, folks, we are indeed INSANE!
If we truly have the power within in us through Christ to bring about true transformation then it can also be said there is something going on that is severely deterring the release of that power in and through the life of the individual Christ follower to bring about that transformation. It is my contention that we need to look no further than the church itself, not some outside force. It is my contention we are being led by leaders that can only described as having gone "mental" on us. They appear to be a self absorbed, controlling, dominating group living under a spiritual psychosis of some sort, a schizoid paranoia, where they fear if they let the church be the church then they somehow will "lose it."
Look no further than this statement from The Lausanne Committee For World Evangelism: "The privileged task of pastors and teachers is to lead God's people (laos), into maturity and to equip them for ministry. Pastors are not to monopolize ministries, but rather multiply them, by encouraging others to use their gifts and by training disciples to make disciples. The domination of the laity by the clergy has been a great evil in the history of the church. It robs both laity and clergy of their God intended roles, causes clergy breakdowns, weakens the church and hinders the spread of the Gospel. More than that, it is fundamentally unbiblical." (Emphasis added.)
Today's Christian leaders produced by seminary training systems are led to set up church systems that severely stifle the church. When I ride by a "church" building I no longer see a church, but a prison, a large 'padded holding cell', a real cuckoo's nest. I can hardly look at one anymore.
If he were alive, I believe A W Tozer and many others like him would concur, as I believe Christ Himself would. Further, I believe if Christ appeared on the scene He would padlock the front door of our "church" buildings, and tell everybody, "GO HOME, and build the church from there!" And He would tell us we DON'T need the professional clergy to help us, and that in reality they have severely crippled HIS church, not theirs though they appear to think it is, through their domination and control.
Further, there appears to be a mania and delusion that has set in with many of the "prominent" Christian leaders today. Have you ever listened closely as you watched the "T D Jakes's, Andy Stanley's, Rod Parsley's, Paula Whites", and many others of our day. It's a mix of Elmer Gantry, Tony Robbins, and the Barnum and Bailey Circus coming to town - addicted to the lights and stage. If one of the main characteristics of bipolar mania is a manic episode of grandiosity and rapid speech patterns then they don't have bipolar, they have tri-polar, if not quad-polar. These people scare me to death. They're mumbling and jumbling all over the place.
Or, how 'bout the delusional spiritual Christian psychics on the networks. You know the ones, "I see someone who has a knee keeping you from walking, and God is healing that right now. Gill, what do you see?" She answers, "Joe, I see a man who has an ear that he can't hear out of, and the Lord is building a whole new ear drum as I speak." Friends, if they can see the person, do you think they can perhaps tell us the name of the one they are seeing? Have you EVER heard them give the NAME of the person they are "seeing"? I haven't! Guess God will heal them, but thinks it is better if He holds back their name. Hmmm...God is concerned about a legal restraint. He can't give Gill and Joe the names without their consent, right? Oh, Lordy...
Friends, I gotta tell ya, my skin is crawling, and I get the 'heebee geebees' just writing it.
Well, there you have it.
Christianity to...Churchianity to...INSANITY!
Perhaps we should lock the doors of the "church buildings" after everybody is inside them this coming Sunday, and never let them out.
You know, it just might be the only hope the Kingdom has today!
After all, they appear to have all gone mad - doing the same thing over and over again thinking they will get different results.
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/21/2008 7:11 PMAaron, Sarcasm makes for interesting reading, but I also find it makes the writer sound like an angry person. There is a time to express anger, but when most of one's comments are such in tone, it diminishes credibility. lh Posted by lh | Posted at 08/22/2008 7:21 AM
MPM,
I certainly don't endorse the likes of TD Jakes, Parsely, Hinn (the king of the modern charlatans), etc.
However, you're projecting your limited (bad) experience and universalizing it for all Christians. Sorry, but my pastors are faithful, godly, and gracious men who love the flock of Christ. I've known both of them for 15 years, and we've been through a lot together as part of the church family.
Don't be surprised, however, when pastors sin--even grievously. The best of men are men at best, and they're still sinners. That doesn't make the pastoral office unbiblical or evil by nature. You should pray for pastors and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. I thank God for the godly testimony and example of my pastors because I know that if God left them to themselves they would surely fall, like the rest of us.
Your apparent anger about past wrongs done to you by pastors is clouding your thinking with regard to the church. Please reconsider...
Best,
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/22/2008 7:22 AMWell said Ih,
That cuts both ways though, see the choice comments from some on the other side.
But I'll take your exhortation to heart...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/22/2008 7:25 AMAaron, thanks for your response. Unfortunately, we are in disagreement on the biblical nature of the pastor's office, first and foremost because it is not an office. It a organic verbal expression of a task be carried out. Further, as Viola points out in his book, the word "pastor" is used only ONCE in the New Testament, and not at all referred to an office, or a static, buiness model for church leadership which it has come t obe in the church.
In addition, you are separating the pastors into a different class. Therein lies the foundation of the problem started by the Romans in anccient Rome. The pressure put on them as a result is heinous. Their families live in glass houses, and further, when they do sin as we all, and all need to confess, they are fearful to openly confess concerned they will lose their jobs. And, that is a UNIVERSAL problem they, and we in the Body of Christ all suffer from it.
Also, their oratory skill, and their performnace on Sunday is used to validate their title, and then feeds their performace based mentality down into the church. It displaces the grace based, unconditionally accepting environment God desires us to grow in. It is a vicious cycle. The pastors themselves are in a prison, and put their church in one as well.
Question, Aaron, have you read "Reimagining Church"? It has an entire chapter on this subject.
Also, you cna visit my site: www.ylifeonline.org.
You will see where my "anger" has led me.
MPM - The "Ranter"
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/22/2008 7:48 AMAaron, Yes, I've noticed MPM's comments. We can all get fired up when we're talking about something we're passionate about. I think that both you and MPM have made many provocative points, but I think they are so much more effective when you both choose to season your words with grace. I think it's safe to say that speaking the truth in love is something every one of us can improve upon. I know that without the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, I do not and could not. lh Posted by lh | Posted at 08/22/2008 9:45 AM
MPM,
You assert there is no pastoral office and then proceed to tell me what it should be. Where is your Scriptural support for this? You will just say that the verses discussing the qualifications for elders does not establish an office, I can just as easily assert that they do. Conclusion? There is room for disagreement and one cannot be dogmatic about it. There is nothing inherent in the text to prove one way or the other without a doubt.
Secondly, I'm not separating pastors into another class of Christian--you're doing that. I consider my pastors as fellow christians that labor among the flock, but who are also a part of the flock. They have a ministerial function among the body of Christ. So this assertion is hollow on your part.
Thirdly, you stating that pastors "perform" on Sundays is poisoning the well and maligning the motives of pastors. They labor in the word and in doctrine to serve the people of God and to build them up in our holy faith. They don't preach in order to validate their title, they preach because it is their calling before Christ as a functioning member of the body. The way you even stated this point is overblown. Again, you universalize your experience. My pastors aren't in prison, neither is my church, and neither am I. We're free in Christ. Who are you to judge this?
And no, I haven't read "Reimagining Church" yet, but I intend to. I try not to criticize books I haven't read, but I must admit my expectations are low given what I've seen in "Pagan Christianity?"
I'll try to check out your site, time permitting....
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/22/2008 11:19 AMAaron, I am assuming you read "Pagan Christianity?", because you said "what I've seen." However, what you saw could be the reviews given by the well known leaders in the institutional church for all I know. Of course, for the most part their reviews would be negative because "PG?" attacks their livelihood. If you have indeed read it, and the accurate scholarship and documented evidence in "PG?" didn't convince you of anything - then I doubt the sequel will either.
You are indeed right on this point. I am in no position to judge you, or any leader in your church. Kudos. Yet, I would say the universal impression is that a "pastor" gains his "patorate", and his level of pay on how well he "preaches" and performs on Sunday. The evidence is overwhelming. What do you think the primary requisite a pastors search commitee is using when they look for their new "pastor"? It is speakership.
Further, I would invite you to put their methods to the test. Go into any pulpit driven church, and two weeks after a "sermon" stand outside the door as the congregants leave the "church" building, and ask how many remember what the "message" was two weeks prior. I think you'll get 90 - 95% blank stares as their hands scratch the back of their heads.
Then, try the home church, and do the same. The staistics will reverse because the participation and interaction by all firmly plants the experience into the mind. In addition, the deep of intimacy and growth reveals a marked improvement over the institutional church.
My trying to discuss these points without if the books have not been read by you is pointless. You frame of reference due to your lack of revelation is accutely lacking to discuss it openly and honestly as a result.
I would like to know, did you read "PG?", or are you just shooting from the hip based on reviews from those in the institutional church?
Also, I didn't put the clergy in a seprate class - the Romans did when they established the Roman Ctaholic Church as a direct need for control and power, and the threat they believed the early church meeting in the home posed. This eventually led to the Dark Ages as the Bible was translated into Latin, language the commoners didn't understand. I'll stop there - don't have time to write a book.
In regard to the pastoral "office." I have heard and read the arguments from the instututioanl church regarding this, and Frank Viola's. The twain don't meet, and the latter blows the former out of the water.
If you want the scriptures get the book, and read it. It will help you gain a much more balanced perpective.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/22/2008 4:34 PMI agree with Jim. "Reimagining Church" is an amazing book. I think every Christian should read it.
Aaron, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate from the bible why we should support the modern pastor office. can you show us a person in the new testament that fits the description of a modernday pastor? you know, preaches sermons every week, marries people, does funerals, is the representative of a local assembly, and all the other things that "pastors" do today.
What makes Westminster so special? who cares what Westminster thinks? who cares what it thinks about George Barna? are you suggesting that Westminister is the only qualified theological school and only those who teach there should be regarded and everyone else, even though they are highly regarded throughout the Christian world across denominations, should be ignored?
I think it's strange that you're posting on this website since your view of Christianity seems so very narrow.
Posted by Tom | Posted at 08/23/2008 6:28 AMMPM,
I've read "PG?", if you read my other comments on this thread you'll see that. And as far as your assertion about pulpits and sermons, you're all wet. I retain quite a bit. And my church doesn't have a committee to interview pastors, although I know that's common among evangelical churches. One of my pastors was a church member for years before he was called by the congregation, the other lived and preached among us for over a year before he was called to be pastor here.
At any rate, if "house church" is where your convictions lie, and you find it to be to your spiritual benefit--fine by me. But don't assert it's THE way to go, or THE only true chuch established by Christ. The Lord of the church has His people in homes and in church buildings.
The major flaw in Frank's book is that he discounts the fact that God uses culture, it's part of man's make-up. Part of the church's growth throughout the centuries is it's cultural development. There were circumstances in the 1st century that influenced the way the church functioned, and there are circumstances in the 21st century that also influence it's functioning. This is undeniable, and it's true of your house church as well as it is for my "institutional" church.
It's just a matter of degree. You say there are elders among you but no office of pastor, I say there are elders among us who are to be recognized as pastors. That doesn't affect my christian life or my walk with Christ one bit. That's why I say this is much ado about nothing....
As far as discussing the book, which aspect of it would you like to discuss? How about this choice quote about church steeples from pg 31, "Ever since the inhabitants of Babel erected a tower to reach to the heavens, civilizations have followed suit by building structures with pointed tops." Yeah, compelling. Church steeple=evil.
Perhaps we could interpret the church steeple to be a structure which points to the heavens, with the hopeful affect of turning our attention to God? Hmm. I guess it all depends on which glasses you decide to wear...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/23/2008 7:40 PMTom,
Actually the burden of proof is on you, as almost no one denies the office of pastor is established in Scripture. Your position is the one that is outside of what is accepted in the churches of Christ, not mine. You have to show from Scripture how the office of pastor, among other things, is unbiblical.
And nothing makes Westminster so special, I just picked it off the top of my head. I could have named any number of other scholarly Christian institutions (oops, there's the evil word), how about Trinity Evangelical Divinity School? What do they think about Barna's research?
I don't think it's strange that I'm posting here as (by God's grace) I have a catholic spirit. I read and try to understand the positions of brethren I disagree with. It's one of the things that has benefited me greatly. Perhaps you were thrown off by the way I express myself. I understand, it happens all the time...
Peace,
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/23/2008 7:48 PMI've read all the comments and as an outsider to this conversation, I have to say that Aaron is closed minded and isn't hearing anyone with an opinion different from his own. The challenges that were given to him were appropriate and he's dodged them all. I read Barna's Pagan Christianity and it deals pretty well with the question of culture versus those traditions that have redfined the church that Jesus established. I'm almost finished with Reimagining Church and I'm liking it even better. It's so comprehensive in addressing the issues and so many of the ideas are new to me. I think talking to Aaron is a waste of time. He doesn't want to be confused with the facts. Posted by Sarah | Posted at 08/23/2008 8:53 PM
Aaron,
A part of me wonders why you are even posting comments.
The proof is in the pudding.
I think the only way you could truly come to a proper conclusion is to attend a home church yourself with an open mind for a relatively extended period of time. Frank Viola's web site at wwww.ptmin.org can help you find one.
All the arguments of what is and what isn't will be answered there. That's my challenge to you.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/24/2008 6:32 AMAnd what challenges have I dodged Sarah? Please clarify....and thanks for the kind words.
MPM,
You appeal to experience, I'm asking for biblical argumentation. I'm posting with the hopes of finding the biblical case for your position. Re-read the comments here all the way back to the top, do you see any Scripture dealt with in any depth? I don't. Just appeals to, well, just read Frank's books. Having read "PG?" my conscience isn't swayed. I guess Frank's book is the best case being made then, and if so I can safely lay this issue aside convinced I have no reason the change my position.
Thanks for the interaction though...
Best,
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/24/2008 8:29 PMAaron,
In all due respect, why in the world would I want to rewrite "Remiganing Church" here. That book has all the accurate scriptural backing with Greek and Latin going forward and backwards.
I've said all I need to say. Get the book for what you are asking for from me, and then go experience it.
I think there is only one reason you are posting. You're looking for something you're not geting in the instituional church.
Read the book - get involved with a home church. Then, post your comments.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/25/2008 7:41 AMMPH said, " I think there is only one reason you are posting. You're looking for something you're not getting in the institutional church."
Priceless! Right on the mark! Aaron, let it soak in.
lh
Posted by lh | Posted at 08/25/2008 9:55 AMMPM,
Actually I was looking for the reasoning behind a novel theological position that as far as I can tell is a rehashing of the doctrines held to by the "Plymouth Brethren". Unfortunately I didn't receive much, but that's OK...
God bless,
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/25/2008 12:08 PMIh,
I guess you're reduced to using the "you're really opposing this because you want to be a part of it" psychological argument, eh? :-)
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/25/2008 2:09 PMAaron, Part of what is happening in these posts is church in action. It is believers coming to "reason together", to interact around Biblical truth and understanding. It's not about one Spirit-filled man doing all the speaking, while other Spirit-filled believers sit passively by, with nothing to offer. It's not about psychological games. I believe MPM was correct in that if you were able to do this in the institutional church you'd feel less inclined to post your questions and beliefs in here.
lh
Posted by lh | Posted at 08/25/2008 6:04 PMAaron,
I think what can happen in a forum like this is we want to "win" something - that being the debate. I don't want to debate it. I don't want to win something. I only invite you to experience what I have found to be a deeper reflection of God's love when I have experienced it. Typically, it has always been outside the four walls of a "church" building. I find more often in a coffee shop or home setting with other believers.
All the scripture in the world to back up this or that is empty without love. It is a gonging symbol. Christianity has no power without love. Further, a building, whatever kind it is can't contain true love if authentic Christinaity is flowing.
It is my contention, not to point a finger at you for something you are or aren't receiving, only from I have experienced that what Frank Viola describes is the truest free form of authentic Christianity. I am simply passing the witness along to you.
You have to assimilate it, and make your own decisions. You're not going to lose your relationship with Christ whether you do or don't - that's for sure. However, you may indeed find it becoming richer.
Finally, I think what I want to tell you is that I love you as a Brother in Christ, first, and foremost, regardless of where you serve and grow in OUR Lord, Jesus Christ.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/25/2008 7:38 PMIh and MPM,
Well, this ended in irenic fashion :-)
The reason I post comments on web sites that generally hold to opposing theological views from my own is not only because I (sometimes) enjoy the debate, but because it prevents me from becoming theologically myopic. It is important, I think, to understand (or at least attempt to understand) the positions held to by other Christians.
In this case, since I consider being a churchman important, I wanted to see where Frank's sympathizers were coming from. Since I can't interact with a book, I entered into discourse here.
Be that as it may, though I disagree with the organic church concept (partly because I see many of the same dynamics Frank laments is missing from church life in my own church, albeit in a different context; and partly on biblical grounds) I'm not judging individual christians in that movement. Rather, I am asserting that the issue is not as black and white as Frank and others appear to think it is. It's no "slam dunk", as even the evidence Frank uses to defend his thesis is debatable. The conclusions he draws are not the only conclusions that can be drawn. Instead of condemning the "institutional" church, it should instead be recognized that there is (legitimate) room for differences among us.
It should be no surprise that some Christians have reacted strongly to Frank's book when in it he attempts to blow up what they hold dear and believe to be a biblical expression of what Christ intends for the church to be. If you're going to swing that way, don't be surprised when you get hit back. It's Frank's dogmatism that I oppose more than his position in and of itself.
Some assertions need to be challenged. I apologize, however, if I've offended with my use of sarcasm.
I should also say that I recognize the problems that plague the evangelical church today. It is because of these problems, and because of the lack of true spirituality in many churches, that some are turning to house churches. I contend that if churches were more biblical, they would have many of the aspects of christian community that Frank discusses. However, organic churches are made up of sinners also and have many of the same problems institutional churches have, to one degree or another.
As for this statement:
"Finally, I think what I want to tell you is that I love you as a Brother in Christ, first, and foremost, regardless of where you serve and grow in OUR Lord, Jesus Christ."
Since it could be said no better, I return the sentiment with hearty agreement.
In Christ,
AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/26/2008 6:37 AMAR,
I don't see any dogmatism in the writings of Viola. I see confrontation. I see a man simply challenging the status quo. Also, as we are "turning to home churches" as you say, we are turning to what is the basis for true Christian fellowship, and growth.
Aaron, also, find me in the New Testament where the church model has the same man in a pulpit week after week, month after month, year after year as the man who gives the word of God. Second, the word "pastor" appears in the New Testament once, and when refined down into the Greek, and the context in which it is used it is a verbal expression not a noun. Perhaps we can start there, and move backwards.
Finally, you're right you cannot interact with a book, but you can with people in a home church environment. I think that is the purpose behind Viola's writings. To get you to EXPERIENCE what he refers to as organic Christianity. Without doing so you have no authentic frame of reference to speak from, only supposition, and for the personal enjoyment of debate. That will never lead you to any true revelation on this, only conjecture.
I have a frame of reference in the instututional church. I was in it most of my adult Christian life, 24 years, and I have very little to show for it except stunted growth.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/26/2008 11:44 AMMPM,
And I thought we were bidding adieu...
Is Frank allowing for the legitimacy of other views besides his own? No. He is saying that his position is what the Lord intended the church to be. That's being dogmatic about the issue.
MPM, find me in the New Testament where the church model is a different man in the pulpit week after week, month after month, year after year as the men who give the word of God. Oh, wait a second, there are no pulpits in the NT. Guess we shouldn't use those then. Second, while the number of occurrences of any given word in the NT is not unimportant, it doesn't bear the weight of the argument you are trying to put forth. I believe "propitiation" is only used in the NT once, so shall we conclude it has no doctrinal purpose, when in fact it is central to understanding the atonement? Since the terms for elder, overseer, pastor, and bishop are used interchangeabley in the NT, the one occurrence of the greek word translated as pastor doesn't trouble me. It is an appropriate term for the office and is the one that is favored among Protestants. The terms for elder, bishop, overseer, occurr multiple times.
I should also mention that "organic" churches have defacto leadership. They just don't call them "pastors", but they serve the same purpose to a degree. Who's going to make crucial decisions with regard to the assembly? Who is going to resolve controversy? Who is going to determine the orthodoxy of any given doctrine? Who is going to bring a case of church discipline before the body of Christ? Is the church a democracy? And having biblically qualified leadership is hardly "hindering" the Lord Jesus from being the Head of His church, as Frank says in his book. Christ is the functioning Head of His church, pastors or no...
As far as your "frame of reference" point, that is untrue. I do have a frame of reference--in Scripture. I don't need to experience something in order to determine whether or not it is biblical. "You just have to experience it" is no apologetic. And it's not conjecture because I believe I have sufficient proof for my position in Scripture. It's not conjecture for me to determine from Scripture that Buddhist worship is wrong without having to experience it, for example (not equating organic churches with false religions, of course. Just making the point by way of illustration).
And I should say that I do have an acquaintance who is an elder in a house church. From what I gather, they confuse fellowship with worship. You seem to think that if you can't express your opinion during a worship gathering then you're being thwarted in the use of your spiritual gifts. Not so, you've got the wrong context...
Best, AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/26/2008 8:00 PMAR, Are all views legitimate in any given situation? No. Is it OK to declare with confidence, that one's view is correct? Yes. Is that being dogmatic? Perhaps. What person, when making a stand on their conviction, avoids being labeled "dogmatic" by those in opposition? None.
You are right that God didn't ordain pulpits for His church. And, for good reason. They foster a hierarchial system amongst the followers of Christ, which cause human beings to look to the man behind the pulpit as their head rather then Jesus Christ. This is the same reason we have a plurality of elders and Spirit-led sharing of God's Word by those whom the Lord has chosen: qualified elders.
Propitiation is an act, the substitution of Christ for sin on our behalf. The word need not be repeated, for the doctrinal concept remains intact and does not change meaning. The term "pastor" is given to men who shepherd God's people, who are gifted to teach and called to protect. It is used interchangably with elder, bishop and other terms for the same office. I have not heard any pastor who understands hermeneutics deny this. Your argument here is a straw man.
Organic churches do not have defacto leadership. They recognize those whom God has qualified to be elders in their midst and understand the need for order in the gathering and mutual submission. The church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, and Christ is King.
MPM is not suggesting that experience dicatate belief. He is suggesting that you participate in a house church for a brief period of time so that you will have a real frame of reference from which to speak, regarding their nature and function. I don't think MPM was applying apologetics here. He was not trying to give a defense for his beliefs, as he has already done that quite effectively.
The tenents of Buddhism do not include worship of gods.
If you are sitting in a traditional church service and the pastor teaches heresy from the pulpit, are you free to stand up and address his false teaching? Of course not. When you find your courage and decide to talk to him privately, do you feel like he will humble himself, admit his error and go back to the pulpit to publically correct his wrong teaching? That would be rare, very rare indeed. Even Paul admonished Christians to check out what he said against the Scripture. Traditional church is not conducive to this. In fact, it works against it at every turn. Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
lh
Posted by lh | Posted at 08/27/2008 8:08 AMAR, wasn't bidding adieu, only saying I was not out to win a debate at the cost of mutual edification.
Do want to iterate that the traditional institutional churches I have been in over the twenty four year span I was in them are some of the most respected in the conservative evangelical camp,. i.e., Chuck Swindoll's EV FREE Church in Fullerton, CA in 1990 before he had move to Tenn., Lake Ave Congregational in Los Angeles, Gene Getz Fellowship Church in Plano, TX, Gene authored "The Measue of A Man", and numerous other books, Perimeter Church in Duluth, led by Randy Pope, D. James Kennedy's Church in Ft. Lauderdale, and finally Forest Hill Church in Charlotte, NC, led by David Chadwick.
I am all too familiar with the corporate mentality, and have been abused by it repeatedly. I have experienced COUNTLESS times what lh refers to about addressing error. It's next to impossible. Try debating Calvinism in a Presbyterian PCA Church. You get buried. They are not open to discussion - only out for indoctrination before you can become a "member" of their church. That, in and of itself is contradictory to true Christian fellowship. I have seen John Calvin held in higher esteem than Christ on numerous occasions, and have Calvinist, (Christians), are more adept in winning someone to Calvinism over their ability to win someone to Christ.
Also, why in the world would you suggest comparing Buddhism as something to experience versus a Christian form of fellowship? All Christians with any foundation at all universally agree that Buddhism is not Christianity - so do the Buddhist themselves. So I think that illustration is rather ludicrous. Further, I was only recommending you do so to HELP you truly discern from first hand experience.
AR, again, my assessment here is you are not here to discover whether the home church can help you grow deeper and wider in Christ, but only to debate why it isn't. Forgive me in advance for any offense taken to the following. It seems you are the one being dogmatic.
I'm only offering encouragement to try it first hand. It won't bite you that is for sure. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/27/2008 5:01 PMIh,
I allow for differences among Christians. I'm only dogmatic where Scripture leaves me no other option, like with regard to the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. However, Frank trashes 2,000 years of church history as a big mistake, as if the Holy Spirit were hand-cuffed by the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, and is dogmatic about it.
My comment about pulpits not being in Scripture was another instance of sarcasm. There aren't hymnals in Scripture either, but you still use them. If you're going to be that literal with the Bible, discard all items you use that are not mentioned in Holy Writ. And it's quite a jump to get from a pulpit to a hierarchical system which causes human beings to look to the man behind the pulpit as their Head rather than Jesus Christ. That's a non sequitur. To say the pulpit leads to idolatry is ridiculous.
Propitiation is the appeasement of God's wrath through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. My argument was simply that the number of occurrences of a word in the NT does not determine whether or not a doctrine or concept is biblical. I asserted that the terms for elder, bishop, overseer, etc are interchangeable in the NT, so the fact that the term translated as "pastor" occurs only once does not establish the non-existence of the office. Where's the straw man?
You said:
Organic churches do not have defacto leadership. They recognize those whom God has qualified to be elders in their midst and understand the need for order in the gathering and mutual submission. The church is not a democracy. It is a monarchy, and Christ is King.
Me:
Right, so they have "elders" who do the same things that "pastors" do. De facto leadership. And I agree, the church is a monarchy and Christ is the King.
I know what MPM was suggesting, that experience was necessary to determine the truth-claims of the proponents of the organic church. Otherwise I have no frame of reference, which is wrong. Scripture is my frame of reference. I know Buddhists do not worship a personal deity, but they do worship. Regardless, it was an example. I could have just as easily plugged in Jehovah's Witnesses if you like.
I think your last statement betrays the fact that your view of pastors is jaded. First of all, if a pastor was teaching heresy he would be corrected by his church and fellow elders, and if he persisted in heresy he would be excommunicated. And any pastor who wouldn't receive the concerns of the people of God about what he has been teaching is showing himself not to be qualified as an overseer. He is to be temperate, gentle, sensible, not pugnacious, not self-willed, etc. On the other hand, he can't bow to every church member's problem with this or that doctrine, as he is commanded to "hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:9). You paint a tyrannical picture of the pastor, as if he has no tender-hearted concern for the sheep. You may have experienced this in your own life, but don't universalize your experience so that all pastors are thrown into the same bucket.
And I've heard pastors apologize for something they misstated or inferred or said that was wrong. A pastor that can't do that isn't worth his salt.
Finally, you said:
Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
Me:
Are you suggesting that everyone who speaks up at your church gathering is the direct mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit? So it's not opinion sharing, but divine revelation? Whoa, stop the bus...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/27/2008 9:07 PMMPM,
That's quite a line up of evangelical churches, you must have moved around a lot :-)
If you don't mind me asking, how were you abused by these churches? Generally and vaguely, no names of course...
And if the PCA church you were attending felt that way about Calvinism (to which I assume you are not an adherent) why didn't you just leave to attend a church with which you agreed? If the members of that church held to Calvinistic doctrine, what kind of fellowship did you expect to have as a non-Calvinist? Of course such a church is not open for discussion because they believe the doctrines of grace are biblical and true. Should I go to a charismatic church and try to convince them the gifts have ceased and passed away with the apostles? Wouldn't make sense, would it?
As I stated in my comments to Ih, the use of Buddhism was an example. To wit, that I don't need to experience something to determine whether or not it is true. I don't need to visit a Kingdom Hall to have a frame of reference to determine the truth-claims of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Best, AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/27/2008 9:26 PMYea, I built ministries from the ground up, and after they became successful the robbed "professionals" decided they better "handle" it. Then, I sat and sadly watched them run them into the ground. In addition, I had a senior pastor run off to copyright my work when I had brought it to him for perusal, and it is now used throughout his denomination. They are other stories, and it really makes me too ill to go into any further.
Regarding your statements on Calvinism. TRUE fellowship in the Spirit would allow for an open ongoing discussion of doctrine, and long as it is not universally understood to be off base - like trying to discount the resurrection, or that being born again is not necessary to enter the Kingdom. Further, Calvinism is more about grace through election and predestination, not the free will choice of grace offered to all. True fellowship allows both to be discussed and held freely in fellowship with one person not excluding the other. That's why denominationalism is such a barrier to unity in the Body of Christ. They split away from other followers of Christ because of a doctrinal issue, and cause disunity in the process.
Further, I would never "go to a church" for the sole purpose to debate their doctrines as you suggest. However, I will certainly leave one when they try to hold their doctrine as superior to the point of exculding others. In the Body of Christ we should gather together in unity of the Spirit and accept others in spite of their difference of doctrine as they accept us as long is there is not any severe departure from what is clearly defined in scripture.
In PCA churches I have attended classes entitled, "Free Will or Predestination", with a subtext, "Come join the discussion." It is not a discussion I can assure you. It is a set up to indoctrinate you into their own position of Calvininsm. It's a subtle form of brainwashing without true GRACE given to those not holding to the position of Calvanism. Then, when all is said and done you will not gain any traction in your service there as a result of holding a different position. It's like a cult. Heck, IT IS A CULT! Worse, is the way they live as if they have received some far superior revelation that only true spiritual intellects can grasp is really sick.
In true home based, organic Christinaity the aforementioned is absent. You can choose your own path, and remain with those described above. I have chosen mine, and am overjoyed I m ano longer a part of the institutional church.
Finally, back to the 'wit'. It appears you have evaulated your stance on organic home churhes growing in and out of the home as you would a Buddhist of Jehovah's Witness. Are you serious?
Also, you have tried in prior posts to devalue the claims of Viola because of a lack of renowned "reformers" justifying his work. Perhaps you looked past George Barna having co-authored the first book with him, or their online interviews. George Barna is recognized as one of the most often quoted men throughout Christendom. Not to mention Leonard Sweet's EXTREMELY glowing endorsement.
Now, I would find it hard to believe that any man truly seeking to engage and discern the truth of organic Christianity would refrain from taking a closer look with the 'witted' excuses you use.
In all due respect, the wind pouring forth from your lungs is fast becoming hot air.
Best, Pal Madden
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/28/2008 5:17 AMDear AR,
Again, being dogmatic often comes with strongly held convictions. Are you saying that it's only OK for you to be dogmatic with regard to ecclesiology and we are all to assume your understanding is grounded in Scripture, even when you've shown us no clear evidence of that??
Pulpits themselves do not lead to idolatry. Will you deny that many "laymen" see a pastor as higher in status (indeed, I know of pastors who teach that they are) and less approachable than "regular" Christians? A pulpit, by its placement and use becomes a focal point in the place of worship. I'm not sure that is where the Lord intended to have the bride of Christ focused week after week, year after year. Oh, I know you were being sarcastic. You usually are.
Straw Man: " an opposing argument, put up in order to be defeated or refuted." And, yes, I know you already know that. I repeated it for clarity. No one in here has stated that the number of occurrences of a word in the Bible determines doctrinal veracity. By implying that, you've put up a straw man argument that you can easily refute.
Yes, house churches have servant leaders/elders. If you want to call it a matter of fact, that's fine. However, there are many differences between organic church leadership and traditional salaried pastors.
With regard to your evaluating home churches on the same basis as buddhists or JW's, I too must ask, are you serious?
It's good for you that you have only experienced humble, servant-hearted pastors who are more than willing to admit error and publically correct their error to protect the flock from false teaching. I can assure you however, that this is extremely rare and I will repeat that traditional hierarchial systems work against this type of humility and accountability.
And, yet again - you throw up another straw man by saying that I suggested that everyone who opens their mouth in a church gathering is a mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. Of course we both know that is not at all what I suggested, although it's much easier to refute on your part. I was, in fact, responding to your earlier post stating, "You seem to think that if you can't express your opinion during the worship gathering, then you're being thwarted in the use of your spiritual gifts." Let me respond to this another way. Is it your understanding that only the pastor has anything of spiritual value to say during the gathering of the body of Christ?
lh
Posted by lh | Posted at 08/28/2008 8:58 AMMPM,
Certainly a pastor who steals material from you without repentence should be dealt with by the church. That doesn't make the office of pastor unbiblical, that just illustrates that pastors can and do sin.
Members of a church should have a confession of faith that they agree on generally, for how can two walk together unless they agree (Amos 3:3)? And how can they be of one mind, all thinking the same thing (1 Cor.)? The point I made about going to a charismatic church when you disagree with the doctrines that characterize them is that to do so would be foolish. If you know a church holds to Calvinism, don't attempt to join such a fellowship when you reject Calvinism. That is stirring disunity among that body of believers. And Calvinism isn't a cult, please refraim from such perjorative terms.
And finally, you and Ih keep getting confused about my point with regard to Buddhism and JWs, so let me state it again. You said that I had to experience the organic church, that I had no frame of reference for making a judgment. Then I said that *my frame of reference* was Scripture. I don't need to *experience* something to know whether or not it is *biblical*. I only need to consult Scripture to determine that. *For example* I don't need to attend a Kingdom Hall to know that the form of worship that takes place there is unbiblical. Therefore, I don't need to attend an organic church either to determine whether or not it is biblical. I'm not saying organic church members are not Christians, nor am I saying their Buddhists or JWs. I hope that is clear enough.
What I'm looking for hear is the *biblical* argument for the house church position, and so far the only attempt to even deal with the Bible is your one argument that the word "pastor" only appears once in the NT. That's it. The rest is emotion.
If you're going to win my conscience on the matter, you're going to have to do it with Scripture.
Best, AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/28/2008 1:03 PMIh,
The fact that the word for "pastor" only occurs in the NT once was put for by MPM as an argument against the office of pastor, so I addressed that argument. Perhaps you missed it.
You said:
Expressing opinions is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak through any He chooses when believers are gathered together.
So, if you're not suggesting what I said, please explain. What exactly did you mean?
Best, AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/28/2008 1:15 PMIh,
I failed to respond to this one:
"Is it your understanding that only the pastor has anything of spiritual value to say during the gathering of the body of Christ?"
During the sermon, yes, because only one person can preach at a time. Afterward, no.
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/28/2008 1:18 PMRE: Scripture - How many times does it have to be said? I am not going rewrite Viola's book here, nor am I going to take the time to retrieve it for you. Spend $15.00, get it yourself, and read it. It is chocked full of all the scripture you will ever need, and gives every *biblical* reference you need. Furthermore, I am no longer interested in try to "win your conscience". I don't think you have any real interest in knowing the real truth or you would have read the book yourself already.
You also said, "If you know a church holds to Calvinism, don't attempt to join such a fellowship when you reject Calvinism." You don't have to worry about that. Been there, done that, was raped and pillaged. I've seen first hand the "grace" of Calvinism you allude to, and the corporate veil behind which they operate. I have seen Calvinism mar one person after another, and cause total confusion in their walk with Christ. To me, it is indeed a CULT. I would almost bet my life that you're defense of Calvinism is met with far more vigor than it would be of Christ himself. The very fact that you jumped to its defense like you did proves my point, as I have witnessed time and again by Calvinist. As a matter of fact, my guess is that is why you are so stubborn, and unwilling to do what any reasonable person would do truly understand what is being discussed here is your Calvinism.
Hmmm...must be "predestined."
Everything you're saying is a repeat of what you said before.
You're on a merry go 'round.
It seems Calvinists are always on the same merry go 'round.
I'm done with this. When you have read the book, experienced organic Christianity, and then posted I'll invest more time.
However, as it stands not interested.
Take care of yourself, MPM
Also, the way I have seen the way Calvinism handled is cultish. John Calvin would have nothing to do with what so many have done with his name
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/28/2008 1:34 PMMPM,
I didn't say a word about defending Calvinism, nor did I state my position either way. I just asserted that Calvinism is not a cult. Tender spot with you, I guess.
"Reimagining Church" is on back order until next month. Guess I'll have to wait until then. However, in seeking to defend a theological position, especially one that is the *real truth*, "just read the book" doesn't usually convince your opponent. A biblical defense should be easily mounted for such truth.
Be that as it may, we shall dismount.
Take care,
AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/28/2008 2:03 PMAR, Is it your understanding that when your pastor speaks, is he simply offering his opinion? I take it you don't differentiate between Spirit-led admonishment, songs, hymns, words of encouragement - and - personal opinion.
Common courtesy dictates that when one "has the floor". others listen without rude interruption. Within the body of Christ our Head, should only one man "have the floor" week after week, month after month, year after year?
I think I'll have to agree with MPM that until you read Viola's books or visited an organic/house church, your understanding of this whole concept is greatly limited. It is probably futile to keep up this discussion. But, it's been interesting. God bless!
lh
Posted by lh | Posted at 08/28/2008 2:05 PMAR, do want to clarify a few things, most of which is sorrow for bowing out like I did.
Yea, the PCA and Calvinism is a sore spot. That much was made evident. It entailed the demise of my marriage, and the alienation of my five lovely children. I have seen first hand the wort part of the PCA and Calvinism, and want nothing at all to do with it.
I am also guilty of jumping to conclusions on your theological stand. My guess was you hold to the Calvinist view. You didn't clarify. However, that is moot now. Please forgive me for jumping the gun.
Also, your next to last post to me was you're needing biblical reference. I said for you to get the book, and then you respond saying reading a book doesn't necessarily do it - when the book has all the biblical references. It's like one excuse breeds another. I feel like Rush Limbaugh talking to liberal. That is used on as an illustration of great the divide is here.
Here's my question: What won you to Christ? How much info did you need? What experiences touched your heart? Who did you need to hear from? Did you go on and on asking for this and that over and over, and then it finally hit home? What was it?
Forget about the organic church. Just tell me what it would really take to truly sway you on anything in your life.
Again, I did not reenter this dialogue to win you to the organic church. It is was mainly because I am sorrowful for ending like I did on a possible false assumption about you, and once I got back in touched back on the subject again.
I think you will enjoy the book, and learn a great deal from it. I know there are some free downloads at www.ptmin.org of Viola's book.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts when you're done with it.
Best, MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/28/2008 3:41 PMOops, there are free downloads of a couple of chapters of the book, not the book itself.
MPM
Posted by MPM | Posted at 08/28/2008 3:46 PMMPM,
I'm sorry for the painful experiences you mentioned above, I really am. And forgiveness granted, of course.
To simply answer your question, God used a campus Bible study on the book of Romans to first begin to work savingly in my heart. That lead me to the church I attend as the Bible study was conducted by one of the deacons. Then I heard the preaching of God's word on a regular basis, the faithful opening up of Scripture. I became convicted of my sin, saw serious discrepancies between my own life and what it says in Scripture, saw that my motives for doing things was self-centered, and by God's grace I called upon His name and He saved me and gave me a new heart.
So what it would really take to sway me on this issue (or any other, for that matter) would be a compelling biblical case for the position. As a sinner, I can't trust my feelings, but judge my experiences in the light of Scripture.
I intend to read "Reimagining Church" when it arrives in the mail. Perhaps we'll discuss this issue again....
God bless,
AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/29/2008 7:20 AMFrank, I beleive God has brought what you have done to my attention, to save me from denying my faith altogether. I thought for the last 2 years that there was something wrong with me, and why I lost my desire to serve Him and love Him like I first did. I am just so bored of "churchianity" , and ready to get back to the basics. Thank you so much for being obedient to the Lord, all the glory and honor be to Him. I will continue to pray for you, and all of us who want to live out Christ's life in real living form.
God Bless and peace be to you and yours!
Posted by AJ LOPEZ | Posted at 08/29/2008 10:16 AMAaron and all you others out there. Look guys, you ain't the only enlightened ones here on the planet. God doesn't speak to just you. Frank wrote a book and you have a differnet opinion than his. Fine. Leave it at that. Every single one of you are sitting here telling the other person that you know more scripture than the other. ALL OF YOU MISS THE MARK! Get out and help the hungry, the homeless, the orphan, the widow, and stop worring about a stupid book. And Aaron, you treated Bob, the "unbeliever" like a piece of crap. No wonder Frank has to right a book like this. No wonder we live the unChristian faith. It's treating people like they are garbage that pushes them away from our faith. It's not the truth many of the times but how we treat them. You gave Bob the unbeliever even more reason to hate us, because once again, we didn't accept him. So he wondered into a Christian forum, we should welcome him like Christ would. Jesus would never have told little Zachy in the tree that "perhaps you should know a thing or two about the subject..." I don't care what the lack of knowledge an unbeliever has, we don't just treat him like trash. If anyone else replies to this again, please make it an apology and a committment to move on and BE THE CHURCH not play it. And Bob, I apologize for my christian family members in the way they treated you. I promise, Jesus would never treat you like this and turn you away. He does love you. I promise. Posted by Micah | Posted at 08/29/2008 10:26 PM
*revision- It's not the truth that makes people turn from the gospel all the time, but the way we treat them. ( sorry got carried away with fingers) Posted by Micah | Posted at 08/29/2008 10:29 PM
Aaron, you wrote;
"The lack of properly qualified leadership was probably the reason the Corinthian church was so disorderly."
If that was actually the case, then it was the ONLY thing that Paul didn't address in the two epistles to the Corinthians that we have.
It is significant that Paul did not make it the responsibility of the "leadership" of the Corinthian church to solve the problems and whip the membership back into shape.
T
Posted by Tom Christian | Posted at 08/31/2008 6:51 PMMicah,
If someone is going to make ignorant claims, I'm going to challenge them on it. If "Bob the unbeliever" wants to wander into a Christian web site to sling bombs, I'm going to deal with him in a certain way. If he enters into a discussion because he really wants to learn what the faith is all about, I'm going to deal with him in another way. And in case you didn't notice, Bob the unbeliever wasn't looking to learn about the truth as it is in Jesus. He's a mocker of the faith. Does God accept unrepentant mockers?
Be that as it may, I didn't treat him like trash at all. I just didn't coddle him. If Bob felt I mistreated him in any way, let him speak for himself...
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/31/2008 8:25 PMTom,
There are plenty of things Paul didn't address in the Corinthian epistles, so that's no argument against the lack of properly qualified leadership there.
And Paul didn't make it the responsibility of the "leadership" there to solve the problems and "whip the membership into shape" as you perjoratively put it because there was a *lack* of leadership. Besides, biblically qualified leadership isn't the answer to every problem the church experiences.
Best, AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 08/31/2008 8:38 PMThank you for sharing your testimony. I'm in the process of reading 'The Normal Christian Life', by Watchman Nee for the 2nd time. I've been dissatisfied in church for a number of years, and like you just going through the motions. It seems to me in my experience that the church focuses on performance and knowing about scripture instead of coming into a complete understanding of Who God is, and how does He view me. Some years back I started praying to know God and asking Him to reveal Himself to me. It seems I have grown more at home with my understanding of God than anything I ever heard in a church. I have yet to hear a sermon in church explaing the full substitutional work of Jesus Christ. In fact, when I go to church I usually leave feeling frustration because I feel that what I'm hearing isn't lining up with what scriptures are saying. I feel that the pastor is trying to 'whip' me into shape. Yes I hear that God loves me, but it is a vague explanation that leaves me unfulfilled. It's because the english word 'love' doesn't convey God's unconditional, and relentless pursuitent of us type of love. I have found out the hard way it doesn't do any good to explalin this to people. They look at you with deer in the headlight type of look, unless they are desparate like I was to know God. Then they drink in every word. My scholaring son, like you read church history, and has shared some of his knowledge on that front with me. My question is, do we continue to stay in these churches starving for sermons about Who Jesus is? And if we do stay, do we try to buck the system, and cause discord? Or do we quietly leave? If we choose to leave, what do we do? If it was just me, I'd leave in a heartbeat. I'm that sick of it. But I have two children still at home. I feel it's important that for their sake we forsake not the gathering together with believers. I know these people love Jesus, and are loving towards my family. There are those, like us hungering for a fuller understanding of what salvation is. It's more than just making it into heaven after we die. I could go on and on. Just wanted to say thank you. I plan on reading your book Posted by Chris | Posted at 09/08/2008 1:27 AM
Man, you are incredibly astounding. Keep up the fire. I pray to my father to give many more people your kind of knowledge and expose. I have been a pastor, a general overseer, a deacon and what have you but no fulfilment until i started out as a watman and market place minister. It has extended my understanding of God to the extent that the closer i think i am to Him to more ignorant i feel i am of Him. God bless you. Posted by Yemi Issachar | Posted at 09/09/2008 12:08 PM
Frank, Thank you for your testimony. I was taught that devils don't act like that, that such things are only what Hollywood movies are made of. I was taught that according to Acts 19:13 (KJV), the vagabond Jews mentioned were using a devil spirit named the Lord Jesus to cast out devils, but Jesus asked, "How can Satan cast out Satan, and a house divided against itself can not stand."
I don't think darkness casts out darkness, rather darkness is dispelled by that which is light.
Their answer to the question How can Satan cast out Satan? ......It just takes a bigger devil spirit to cast out a smaller one.......I think if they tried that in heaven, that maybe the Lord might tap them on the head with a rolled up scroll or something.
I wonder if anybody ever saw one of the devils named the Lord Jesus? If they did, I wonder , was wearing a name tag or something? I wonder if they have ever cast out a devil named the Lord Jesus in the name of the Lord Jesus? It doesn't add up.
I think the Jews mentioned in Act 19:13 (KJV) were some whose character was a bit less than magnificent, yet they cast them out by faith using the name of the Lord Jesus.
I suppose if we are not walking right in Christ, not wearing the whole armor of God, God might allow us to be overcome so that we might learn to walk circumspectly, and overcome.
RB
Posted by Ray Brensike | Posted at 09/14/2008 8:33 AMJust wanted to add my bit. I grew up in a quasi house church movement - the Plymoth Brethren. When we 'went to church' it was in a building, but there was no order of service, there was no one up the front and a pastor was unheard of. We had elders who were the leadership as it were.
The services were quite free - from the age of 14 I would pray, read the bible, and somtimes make a short devo/comment on what I just read. We did have a sermon though, and it was in these times I learnt a lot (although alot wasn't all that great either). But nonetheless, nearly everyone would hang around after the service and have lunch together. People would just chat about life and would often engage in what was talked about in the sermon. There was about 50-60 people in the chuch all up. We also had mid-week meetings.
One thing that does stand out to me now is that when ever someone needed help - it was there. If someone was moving house, everyone would help. THere always seemed something going on with someone in the church who would need a hand.
Now where I grew up, this movement has all but failed. Why, to a large extent they became elitist - their way was better.
I have been part of the 'institutional church' for about 10 years now. I love it. I don't just come in and get my lift and go. My two biggest influences in reconciling my past and present have been N T Wright and Tim Keller. While the institution has not always got it right (sometimes deadly wrong), there are some great things about her. I will be interested to see what the house church movement looks like in the fourth generation. My guess is that it will be like what I grew up in. Some really good underlying principles, but vastly deep cracks that - often become irreparable.
Daniel
Posted by Daniel | Posted at 09/28/2008 10:50 PMI just want to say a big hearty "AMEN BROTHER". It is as though you wrote my testimony...my story....For years I have been saying the same things about traditional churches....I have been born again now for over 30 years, and the more I get into the Word of God, the more I learn and see TRUTH! Jesus said the "truth" will set us free....the tradional churches keep God's people in BONDAGE. The Lord told me that His Body is sick, that the churches were prostituting His Word and He was sick of it! It's time that preachers quit building THEIR Kingdom and started building GOD'S Kingdom. WE, God's people, are the CHURCH (or are supposed to be), not some building!
I was recently in a church and heard a "so called prophet" from Africa saying that if we gave all the money we had for the building of this preacher's "church", God would heal us and keep us alive in famine or distress! He told everyone who could give their life savings, their 401Ks, and their children's inheritence--- for the building of this big church in the city, to come forward and he would pray a special prayer for them! I WAS APAULED!! I couldn't believe my ears. In other words, we would be blessed ONLY if we would give all of our money for the building of this "church"! What about the people in that church who are about to have their lights turned off, or they need rent money to keep from being evicted, or a widow who needs her grass mowed, or a mother who can't feed her children because her husband walked out on them and she has no job????? What about those people who give and give and they are told that they are "cursed" because they don't give the preacher 10% of their income, which, in reality and truth, they are the ones robbing God for doing and preaching this! I met a girl at my mother's yard sale who gave me a copy of your book, "Pagan Christianity".......I was blown away....Everything that Holy Spirit had been telling me.....was in your book!!!! Thank you again, Frank, and I pray God's blessings on you and your family!!
Posted by Nancy | Posted at 09/30/2008 12:03 PMThe Gospel of the Kingdom is obviously NOT what the traditional institutional churches are focused on. They are not focused on making disciples who practice, in appropriate leading from the Holy Spirit, disciplines ("...abstain from the fleshly lusts that war against the soul.") that enable them to obey Jesus.
They are focused on growing (getting more attendees/members either professing Christians or those who are not). I know, because I'm part of a "church" plant right now. But I remain so I can learn patience, humility, and how to suffer like Jesus. One of my mentors, a well-known writer on spiritual formation said to to a small church group, "The church is there to make you suffer." Obviously, we know what he means. He does not mean the called-out-people of God.
I could leave and start a house church, but I doubt I'm really ready for that. We need to bless people like Frank and others saying what they are, because I was with them for a very LONG time. Through my late teens and early twenties, I was truly disgusted with the institutional churches. I do not think this is a good place to be. I go into the institutions to serve. But I am well aware of the truncated gospel lived out there. Praise God that he calls us to die with His Son! And Praise God for those who loudly proclaim and live the words, "The church is NOT a building!"
God bless, Sam
Posted by Sam | Posted at 09/30/2008 1:46 PMA friend of mine once said, "rats leave the ship, captains strive to save it" I choose to remain because I still believe the Church is too divine to be human, though too human to be divine. It is the conduit I believe God continues to use to reach the world, flawed as it may be. Posted by MJC | Posted at 09/30/2008 1:56 PM
This article is proof that emergent needs to be entertained, because they are bored. Emergent wants to be entertained because it is a replacement for lack of intimacy with God. If they would go to church for the right reason they would not feel compelled to emerge. This is due to lukewarmness.
If they were on fire they wouldn't care where they were attending church, or what kind of music or traditions. If emergent had an Spiritual experience with God's manifest presence they would not be searching for the excitement of the colored lights, candles, incense, power points, techo music, thundering through the newest fancy digital board and speakers systems.
Also these 100 member churches trying to act like they are mega Churches are silly. This is the extremism of emergent folks. It's about creating this man made worshipful atmosphere, instead of crying out for the presence of God. Also emergent does "series" on gnostic philosophy based on the bible instead of pure biblical discipleship.
One real touch from God and you won't care about emerging anymore. The fact is, emergent is just as dry, if not dryer, than the church you left, but of course it is more entertaining. All the churches in America trying to be a miniature Hillsong is not emerging, it's cloning.
Posted by Ray Burdick | Posted at 09/30/2008 2:41 PMMJC is assuming that the "ship" = "the church." Just because something calls itself "a church" does not mean it is really an ekklesia. Ekklesia is defined by dynamic functioning, not by outward marks. As Ralph Neighbor pointed out, "I think it is theologically correct to say that if a group of Christians who assemble don't have certain characteristics as their criteria and their foundation, they aren't a real church in the biblical sense" (unpublished manuscript). The truth is, the ship that a lot of people are jumping out of is not "church," but an institution infested with human traditions that have nullified God's Word. As has been said by others, people are leaving "churches" in droves, not because they are losing their faith, but in order to preserve and practice their faith. To identify all those who choose to leave as "rats" is hardly fair, and is a judgment that is insensitive to the realities people face in many institutional churches. Posted by Jon Zens | Posted at 09/30/2008 3:15 PM
Just in the last couple of years the Lord has led me into a new church which does NOT fit all my ideas of an ideal church, but God has been ministering to me, and chipping away at some of my rough edges, and the more of my own failings that are exposed, the more I find that God has provided some ministry in my church (sometimes just the right individual) to help me heal or repair that need. The 'institutional church' of the 21st Century is woefully short of the image of the "Bride of Christ" that is described in the New Testament. For that matter, it is far short of the "Priesthood of Believers" described in the Old Testament.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to remember that it was a very corrupt Roman Catholic Church that brought the gospel to the point where Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg. It was a corrupted Anglican Church that brought/sent much of the Good News to America. It has always been grossly inadequate, imperfect churches that have sent our missionaries and pastors into a world even more hungry for the word of God, and it is always a loving, caring God who has used yeilded people in a very inadequate 'church' to do the work of the kingdom.
God is continuing to use us, such as we are, until He returns. I sincerely believe he has begun to prune, prod, and prepare his bride in a way we've barely seen in the past, but it will always be the Groom that is perfect, and a bride that is only acceptable, by His Grace.
Posted by Odinelson | Posted at 09/30/2008 3:35 PMFrank,
Unfortunately, it sounds like you have absolutely no idea why God raised up the Apostle Paul. You don't understand Paul's epistles and can not relate them to why the early Acts Church died out. In other words you apparently don't understand II Tim. 2:15 "...rightly dividing the Word..." In addition, you apparently may not have any dispensational theology to help you understand why Mark 16:15-20 no longer applies to the church of today.
In Christ, Max
Posted by Max Adamski Jr. | Posted at 09/30/2008 6:04 PMDorothy has seen the wizard, and she has 4 possible choices:
1. Run away, completely. (the faithleaver) 2. Run away, but stay in the orbit of the idea. (the runningprophet) 3. Stand still, and do nothing. (the silentbystander) 4. Run to the wizard, see yourself as part of the "we," and help fix a gift that could be beautiful once again (the hopegiver)
I've come to believe that God is not afraid of historical process nor human process; we however, are deeply suspect of both.
Over the course of thousands of years, the containers have been many, and have often shaped the content of our beliefs as the Church. Guilt by association can follow, and a desire to distance ourselves rises to the surface in the face of the inadequacies marring the landscape of an otherwise helpful scene.
Frank, you've chosen the path of 2., and I wish you all the best. Tell us who we are, who the world sees us to be. But for the love of all things holy, allow the Church to be human, and to move through time and culture as sojourners.
I however, choose the path of 4. I see the whole shebang as the "we," and I'll work within as long as I have breath.
Posted by Dan Wilt | Posted at 10/01/2008 7:55 AMJohn Zens,
Is it equally insensitive and unfair to label those Christians who maintain that a typical Baptist or Presbyterian church is a biblical expression of ekklesia as a bunch of human traditionalists who nullify the Word of God?
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 10/01/2008 6:25 PMSorry, Jon Zens (misspelling was unintentional) Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 10/01/2008 6:26 PM
Jill,
You're a fruit loop...
Posted by Debbie | Posted at 10/02/2008 7:05 PMWhether a part of the institutional church or not, one need only follow the life and teachings of Jesus and accept Him in a personal relationship. Still then, we know little about God compared to what we don't know. Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to edify, inspire and guide, but we don't do that, because that gets into the way of our personal opinions and biases. Keep the conversations going but please work to let them reflect your understanding of God through Jesus Christ, not Paul, not Barnabas, not Timothy and not even Peter and not even scripture which we become so idolatrous about. When and if we get to Heaven, I am positive we will all be surprised! Posted by John Denmark | Posted at 10/03/2008 12:12 PM
Aaron, Why am I not shocked by the fact that you are "Reformed"? All of you seem to be arrogant/angry all the time...and of all things...the things of God. What a shame!
brock
Posted by brock | Posted at 10/12/2008 2:11 PMBrock,
I'm not sure what you mean. Would you care to quote me or provide an example of "arrogance" or "anger"? Or are you simply upset that I pointed out an area of hypocrisy in the house church movement?
What a shame!
Aaron
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 10/12/2008 8:03 PMActually, Aaron what amazes/scares me is the fact that you have been monitoring this one particular post for the last two months flexing your theological/intellectual muscles with anyone who responds to you. You must check it many times a day, day after day...how long will it go on? And how many more places in cyberspace are you engaged in this type of edification of Jesus' Body? It truly is amazing. Do you have a job, a wife, kids, ministry? Or is this all you do?
Brock
Posted by brock | Posted at 10/14/2008 1:57 PMYou got it Brock! This is all I do.....
I do it as often as you, apparently
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 10/14/2008 2:08 PMNo Aaron "apparently" you do it much more. My humble 3 times cannot hang with your mastery of the post. Nice try though...oh , also, I noticed that your response to my 2nd was like 10 minutes after. I can just picture you there hovered over your keyboard waiting like a lion to pounce. Halloweeny you are!
brock
Posted by brock | Posted at 10/19/2008 5:39 PMActually Brock, that was providence. I happened to log in a few minutes after you made your comments. Now, if you have something of substance to say, by all means do. But if you just want to bicker in the sandbox, I'll leave you to the sand.
Best,
AR
Posted by Aaron Ronetski | Posted at 10/19/2008 8:08 PMPerhaps some of that arrogance I mentioned before? Posted by brock | Posted at 10/20/2008 6:20 PM
i've read the books and i study the Book - institutional or organic, organic or institutional ? Will and do men abuse power? yes Does that mean ALL men abuse power? No Will theydo it organically or institutionally? Yes on both accounts, witness.
Could the question possibly be asked, when did "what you become" turn into an office or title? being and desiring a noble task of overseer (pastor) can indeed be a humble function of leadership in the Body or can indeed become a place of pious, manipulative, and controlling "position or office" that receives a salary. Our biggest enemy is our selfish desire and our lack of trusting in God who will provide our every need.
My history - 8 generations of ministry family (as far as I've traced so far), seen the good, the bad, the ugly. Does that disqualify humble men in the mix? God is still God and can use a jackass if he desires, did one time in the OT and that man ignored. Could be using one right now ......
Is there something wrong with our systems? yes Does anyone have all the correct interpretive answers? don't think so So how do we move forward? By loving and preferring - ah yes, heard that one before ... from the King.
My Title is son, my Function is teacher, my Name is Styrling. No one need call me Teacher Styrling, Pastor Styrling out of "reverence". Styrling will do just fine since that's my name and not looking to be respected - God will test all of me and has begun already.
Emotion is very difficult to read through words on a page - we should all be careful in our assumptions, talk on the phone and you will be able to carefully judge "tone".
Quite an interesting blog conversation, that's for sure - Aaron, would enjoy talking offline, via email, phone etc. I don't think I've ever suspected anyone in the Body of Christ that enjoys their weekly fellowship as much as you "seem". Just a suspicion, don't hold me to that if you'll indulge.
Posted by Styrling | Posted at 10/24/2008 7:30 AMI have not read the book, I have not read all the comments...as some of them seem rather convoluted and traditional! but thans Frank for being so frank..you are not the only one who has 'left' the organised church to preserve you faith. I grew up as a Missionary Kid, latter I spent 20 years as a missionary myself, and until 4 years ago attended church regualarly..Then I had a major operation and for the second time in the time of greatest need I found myself alone, with non christian friends showing more compassion than anyone, apart from the organised churches I had been attending, and almost any of my 'mission' colleagues. Suffering seemed to scare the christians into staying away or they were so busy with activity that they have not thought about the fact that I miss fellowship, worship and hearing the word of God....but could not sit in the long services..was in too much physical pain to even get out of bed. The past 14 years have been years of God working in my life and God has not failed me yet....but I have learnt that God and any ministry should be born out of Love ....expressed....compassion....not fear of driven ness.
I am still looking for a spiritual home, but do not want to fall back into the old habit patterns of christian life= church activities and meetings...I am hungry for fellowship with those who yearn for a new and lasting expression of God's love through His Church....am yet to find a church that I feel comfortable in both physically and spiritually..till then I meet with interact via facebook with my friends who have a heart for God, I listen to the radio for sermons, I play worship CDs and am trusting God each day to be in my life...from the smallest detail to the big decisions. I have found a new ability to share my life and Jesus with my non christian friends..who come and care for me when I am unable to care for myself.
My prayer is that the church will wake and start to understand what kind of a God is being portrayed to the world...(who ask someone who has lived most of my on the missionfiel and actively contributed to church life)...is the church not meant to be there for you in your time of need.
My new found intimacy with God is precious to me...I have led more people to the Lord since I have not been so actively involved in the church activities...Perhaps the fault lies with me,( I am not naive and looking for a church that is perfect)...but perhaps God is not finished with working in my life and strengthenin my faith in Him alone....for me to be ready to rejoin an organised church.
but I want to say thank you Frank for making me aware yet again that I am not alone in my hunger for God to break through the way that churches are not fully reflecting all that God is, and that I can have the freedom to hold as precious the new faith that I have found since I have not had the opportunity to become part of a 'church'. I pray that one day I will find that place...where someone who is not able to be a typical church member not out of deliberate choice, but a result of my life situation, can be able to share without fear of discrimination and of having to fit my spiritual journey into boxes that stiffle the new way of life I have found in Jesus. Don Fransisco, thanks for all your songs...they have been instrumental in my walk with God over the years!
I hope that what I have share is not offensive..but that fellow christian leaders will perhaps hear a heart that longs to see the compassion of Christ lived out in and through His church. So that I can point my friends in the direction of a church that cares for the lost and wounded of this world not just in word but in deed.
May God be with you as you seek to love and serve Him. Rachel
Posted by Rachel | Posted at 11/20/2008 9:30 PMI've never been to a house church, but if it's anything like what I've experienced in the following description, then I'm in for a real treat when I finally find one: I used to attend a young adults bible study group every Friday night, but it's not what we did during the bible study that would cause me to imagine what house church would look like----it's what we did AFTERWARD! After we had opened with the usual "worship time" which led to the teaching and then a couple more songs, a closing prayer, and then a meal, the night would somehow "change lanes". Here is where I get my picture of what house church must look like: Somehow, and without any pre-planning, we would all find ourselves gathering in a big circle and having beefy discussions about the Bible, what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, doctrinal issues, life issues, personal issues, etc. (and these discussions would go on for quite a while). Then we would all join hands and pray for one another (which would also sometimes last for quite a while, sometimes accompanied by tears). Then finally, someone would break out in song (usually with a guitar) and we would all start singing....and singing.....and singing.......until before we knew it, it was one o'clock in the morning and time for everyone to head home. This would happen at the end of virtually every one of our Friday night bible studies. I didn't know it at the time, but I think we were experiencing a taste of "organic church" at an institutional church bible study group! I guess there's hope for us yet! Posted by jerrod | Posted at 12/27/2008 9:44 PM
I know the traditional church is not for everybody. I have friends who cannot step foot in the church for various reasons. For some of them, I really feel sorry for them and pray for them a lot. Our church has built a separate non-traditional, emerging type church for the young adults seeking relationships and conversations. It has cost a lot of money and the "Pastor" (who isn't ordained) is now asking for over a million dollars more. Not from us, but from the ELCA missional fund. They have attracted about 40 young adults and a few of our people go there.
In the mean time, we have attracted about the same amount of people, simply by keeping our doors open, having community dinners weekly, coffee hour, open hearts, open minds and meaningful services. It takes more than a Pastor to make a church. It takes the congregation. They are the pillars of the church. If you depend on just the Pastor to make your church a success, you will crumble.
God is everywhere. Don't put down a place where people go to worship Him. Even if you disagree, it's still worship. Jesus worshipped in Temples. He recognized the Temple as a place to worship, wo why can't we have our churches?
Posted by thea | Posted at 03/02/2009 11:38 AM2 words GREAT ARTICLE! Posted by Michael Shumski | Posted at 03/19/2009 11:28 AM