Showing posts with label Missional Organic Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missional Organic Church. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2014

Institutionalized Christianity: Friend or Foe? by BERT M. FARIAS

Can the true, Spirit-filled church of the New Testament survive becoming a cultural institution? 

"And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.In response Jesus said to it, 'Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.' Then Jesus went into the temple and began to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves." (Mark 11:12-17)

Jesus cursed a fig tree just before He cleansed the temple and drove out all those who bought and sold there. The contrast in these parallel acts is striking. The cursing of the fig tree represented the destruction of a fruitless religious system. It served as a visual object lesson of what Jesus had come to do in the Jewish temple before He established the new covenant.


When Jesus cursed the fig tree He was cursing forms of religion that rob the heart of power. There are some concepts found in Christianity today that are robbing many of the true power of God. Allow me to briefly address these by using my limited knowledge of church history.

When Constantine, emperor of Rome, made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, it marked the beginning of the institutionalization of the church. Constantine made the Church a state institution. From that point in time until the period of the dark ages (A.D. 1500) much of the church died. What we've seen in the last 500 years has been the renewal, revival and restoration of many truths that had been lost in the church age. Yet there remains a recovery and a resurrection of the effects of the institutionalization of the church. What do I mean by this?

There were two basic fallacies that were birthed during the institutionalization process. The first was the thought of the church being a building. Constantine built beautiful edifices and required Christians to attend. As someone once sarcastically said: "The church building became a theatre, the ministers the actors, and the tithes and offerings were the admittance fee." In this way Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Up until that time Christians had met in homes. This change in regards to Christianity and the Church meeting in large elaborate buildings affected the mindset of multitudes of people during the Roman Empire and in future generations. The issue is not the location or venue of where the church meets so don't get hung up there.

It doesn't matter where the church gathers—in a big building, a small building, a house, a garage, a barn, a tent, or under a tree. The bigger issue is in possessing a New Testament mindset that the church is not a building, but it is the people who are the temple of the living God. This may sound too simple, but this mindset began restricting the gospel to the four walls of a building instead of taking it into public life. It killed the evangelistic fervor of the church. The church is not a building.

We could also add, according to the above passage of scripture, that the church is not a business. As soon as the church becomes more of a business that deals with the dollar in mind, or into a charitable organization that is content with humanitarian projects only, it will begin to wither and die, just as the fig tree Jesus cursed. The church, above all else, has been called to be a soul-saving organism. If the devil can institutionalize it and turn into a powerless religious system it will no longer serve the purposes of God.

The second fallacy that developed and spawned from the first is the thought that the people are an audience. Beginning with the rule of Constantine and the Roman Empire, a great distinction was made in Christianity between the clergy and the laity. This was definitely the greater tragedy during the institutionalization of the church because it shifted the personal responsibility of the individual believer in the church over to the institution and its officers, and he became a spectator instead of a participator. The people are not an audience.

These mindsets have robbed so many of the truth and the power of the gospel, not only centuries ago, but even today. Christianity becomes institutionalized when a building becomes more important than the people, when money becomes more important than the Spirit's workings, when attendance takes precedence over effectiveness, and organization and structure are emphasized more than relationship.

The church is a living organism. It grows from within. You cannot produce a spiritual quality in the church from the outside in. Changing outward forms and structures does not add quality to the church. Adding a new mission statement, changing the worship style or name of a church are all false and unproductive ways of producing quality. Spiritual quality can only be produced from the inside out.

The fig tree that Jesus cursed had leaves but no fruit. In other words, the outside looked good, but a closer inspection by Jesus exposed the tree's flaws and lack of fruit. This was the problem in the temple. It looked beautiful and unblemished on the outside but was unclean and defiled on the inside.

These mindsets can immobilize the gospel and hinder its effectiveness in the public arena. It can also create too large of a distinction between what is called the clergy and laity. Just like an unused muscle, a Christian will begin to weaken and backslide when he does not function in his gift or calling.

What would happen if all believers would function in their place and in their God-given abilities and grace? The devil knows he cannot stop God from distributing these gifts so he seeks to slow down or stop the joint operation of them. He hinders the freedom to exercise these gifts. And he does it through the formation of a mindset that tells the body of Christ that their ministry is insignificant compared to that of a pastor or another five-fold minister.  

Every believer is the temple of the Holy Ghost. Every believer has been given gifts to function as a vital member of the body of Christ. Every believer is set apart for the purposes of God.

Bert M. Farias, founder of Holy Fire Ministries, is the author of The Real Gospel and co-host of the New England Holy Ghost Forum. He is a missionary evangelist carrying a spirit of revival to the church and the nations. Follow him at Bert Farias on Facebook or @Bertfarias1 on Twitter.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Cell Church Movement - The New Testament Flavour






Theological Foundations for Cell Church Ministry


By Joel Comiskey


Winter 2009
Why cell church? Why do we believe in it? Is it because David Cho's church, the largest church in the history of Christianity, is a cell church? Is it because someone said the number twelve will bring blessings and growth? Is it because cell church is the strategy that many "great" churches are using?

The problem with the above reasons is that they don't give long-term foundational strength. God has been showing me lately that theology must guide our strategies-and not the other way around. So what are the core theological reasons for doing cell church? Allow me to share three important ones:

1. The Trinity

Our God is a social God! He lives in relationship with the other members of the Trinity. God is not an independent, lone ranger. Individualism might be the cultural norm in the western world, but God loves community and unity (think of all the one-anothers in the Bible). One of the key values of cell church is that people need to live in community rather than hide in anonymity. The intimacy of a cell group encourages people to know and be known.

The Trinity is also an outreaching God. Evangelism flows from His very heart. God's will is to reach lost people through His Son, Jesus, and the church is His instrument to make it happen. The cell church encourages each member to reach out through relational evangelism. Cells expect all members to develop relationships with non-Christians because such activity reflects the heart of God.

2. Priesthood of all believers

It's quite easy for people to sit in church. Some churches grow large through filling pews. Yet, Scripture teaches that all believers are priests. Cells value the participation of every believer.

Part of the priesthood of all believers is the use of spiritual gifts. My books, The Spirit-filled Small Group and Discover, talk about how cells are the best atmosphere for spiritual gift use. In fact, all of the New Testament gift passages were written to house churches. Cell churches are rediscovering this important truth.

3. Making disciples

Christ's last command to His disciples was to make disciples of all nations. I believe the essence of cell ministry is making disciples who make disciples. Cells are leader breeders and the best place to prepare disciple-makers. Multiplication is at the heart of cell ministry because new cells provide the environment for making new disciples.

I often highlight large, growing cell churches or church planting movements. But such examples shouldn't be the main reasons for doing cell church. The best reason is because cell church promotes key theological concepts and brings glory to the living God.

Why do you do cell church? Or, perhaps you'd like to make a general comment or add a theological concept not listed here. If so, please click HERE.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Legalism, License, Lordship, and Liberty

Frank Viola

When my editor read the pre-publication manuscript of Revise Us Again, he told me that the chapter called “The Three Gospels” had a huge impact on him.

“History,” Martin Luther said, “is like a drunk man on a horse. No sooner does he fall off on the left side, does he mount again and fall off on the right.”

The same can be said about the Christian life. (So it seems to me anyway.)

In the chapter entitled “The Three Gospels,” I discuss three distinct “gospels” (messages) that many contemporary Christians have accepted.

Some have accepted the gospel of legalism. Reformed people tend to restrict legalism to be the attempt to earn salvation by human works. But for the genuine Christian who is saved by grace, legalism goes much deeper than that.

Legalism

Legalists are people who believe that salvation is by grace alone, but sanctification comes by their own efforts of trying hard to be a “good Christian.” Legalists tend to push their own personal standards onto everyone else. They are quick to judge other people’s motives, thinking the worst of them and their intentions. They confuse obedience with trying to serve God in their own strength. They demand other people do things that they themselves would never carry out. They regard the sins of others as more severe and grievous than their own. (Philip Yancey described the legalist perfectly when he said, “Christians get very angry toward other Christians who sin differently than they do.”)

Legalists also feel that it’s their right to become intrusive meddlers, or as Paul put it condemningly, “busybodies in other men’s affairs.” They are blind to their own self-righteousness, and they pride themselves on being “clean” on the outside (without realizing that they are defiled on the inside). For all of these reasons, they unwittingly bring a lot of pain and heartache into the lives of others, yet sadly they seem to be out of touch with this.

Forgive the personal reference, but when I was in my teens, I came to the Lord through a legalistic denomination. I was fed a steady diet of the gospel of legalism and was surrounded by legalists. Thus I used to be a legalist without realizing it. But God was merciful.

Libertinism

In reaction to legalism and the devastation that it brings to other people, some have accepted the gospel of libertinism. Libertines are folks who live the way they want and have skirted the Lordship of Christ and all that it means. They are apt to justify carnality by pulling the “grace card,” the “I’m free in Christ” card, and the “don’t judge me” card. For the libertine, grace becomes license to live in the flesh and silence their conscience.

(Regarding the “judge not” card, the Bible gives us a sharp paradox on the matter of judging. There are scores of texts that exhort us to judge and scores of texts that forbid us to judge. I have written a blog post that I will release sometime in the future that resolves this paradox. It’s tentatively called To Judge or Judge Not?)

Some libertines have rationalized to themselves that they can continue to practice a particular transgression and God is “kewl wit dat,” irregardless of the carnage it brings. (A mark of sin is that it produces unnecessary pain in the lives of others. Sin and love are the exact opposites. Love is benefiting others at the expense of yourself. Sin is benefiting yourself at the expense of others. Sin is selfishness; love is selflessness. Love is a greater force than sin – God’s life is more powerful than satan’s nature – and “love covers a multitude of sins.”)

Some libertines have gone so far into deception that they have reinvented Jesus in their own image to justify their rebellion against the Lord and clothe it with spiritual talk. Others have gone further off the beam and have become practical atheists.

Note that there are degrees of legalism and degrees of libertinism. But these descriptions should give the general flavor of each.

In short, the libertine lives as if there is no God. The legalist lives as though she/he is God to everyone else.

Both attitudes are incompatible with the life of Christ.

Complicating Factors

What complicates the situation further is that . . .

The legalist doesn’t know that he/she is a legalist and tends to view all non-legalists as libertines.

The libertine doesn’t know that she/he is a libertine and tends to view all non-libertines as legalists.

Without the Holy Spirit’s illumination, this deception is difficult if not impossible to break.

The truth is, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. And we all need Jesus Christ to forgive, deliver, and keep us each day from both the defiling acts of the flesh and the self-righteousness of the flesh.

Lordship and Liberty

In “The Three Gospels,” I discuss both the gospel of legalism and the gospel of libertinism in great detail, comparing and contrasting them and giving examples for each.

I then contrast these two “gospels” with the gospel of Jesus and Paul, which I call the gospel of Lordship and Liberty. And I explain how those two words go hand-in-hand.

But the gospel of the New Testament is rooted in reality – the real Jesus – and it sets us free from the defilement of the flesh and the self-righteousness of the flesh—both of which come off the same tree. Both of which bring bondage and cause untold pain to others. For both violate love, the nature of God’s own life.

One of the things I’ve learned in my spiritual journey is that the closer someone gets to Jesus Christ, the less judgmental, self-righteous, harsh-toward-others, and selfish he or she will be.

Again, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. And we all need Jesus Christ to forgive, deliver, and keep us each day from both the defiling acts of the flesh and the self-righteousness of the flesh.

To my mind, this chapter (though not the best in the book in my opinion) is worth the price of admission.

Read more here.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Return of the Early Church: House that Change the World

by Quan Wei
Gospel Herald Reporter
Wed, Jan, 26 2011 03:32 AM PT

Chinese churches have mushroomed in the United States over the past two decades, particularly in immigrant-rich areas such as Los Angeles, New York, and the San Francisco Bay area. Whatever the nature of these churches — denominational or non-denominational, traditional or charismatic, remote or urban — all of them were founded with the dream of creating spiritual and cultural community, while building a bridge of faith between their new and native lands.

Dr. David C. Yang

New York-based physician Dr. David C. Yang was an elder in one such church, whose Taiwanese founders had grown it from a small group meeting in a high school gymnasium into a congregation of hundreds over the case of 15 years. Yet after working hard to help the church achieve its decades-long goal of constructing its own building, Dr. Yang grew concerned that the huge effort needed to achieve this material goal was not necessarily paying off in better fellowship or more efficient proclamation of the Gospel.

Seeking answers for the feelings of frustration that he was experiencing, Dr. Yang came across a book by Wolfgang Simson, Houses That Change the World: The Return of the Home Churches. Upon reading it, he became deeply impressed by its message of return to simplicity and focus on small, close-knit groups of brethren. He shared the book with his pastor and fellow church ministers, hoping to inspire them to introduce the "Home Church" model as a network of self-sufficient satellites that he believed would complement the organized church.

The concept proved controversial, and few of his coworkers were won over. After a long period of prayer and meditation, Dr. Yang finally decided to start a Home Church network independent of his former congregation.

The first Staten Island Home Church meeting took place in February 2004, bringing together a handful of Christians to worship in Dr. Yang's living room. It has continued to grow and split off new groups ever since — with dozens of homes now hosting worship gatherings each week.

Hoping to inspire others to embrace the Home Church model to extend or enhance their worship of God, Dr. Yang shared with The Gospel Herald the philosophical and biblical basis of the Home Church concept. Rather than being a new movement, the Home Church is in fact a way of going "back to the future," inspiring and reviving the modern church using the principles of the early church.

Question #1: Is the Home Church a new concept?
The Home Church was a model commonly adopted by the Early Church.

Yang: As recorded in Christian history, the first church was built in the third century, with construction being completed at Alexandria 325 year after its commission by the Roman emperor Constantine. Prior to Constantine the Great, the Roman Empire had always regarded Christianity as an "illegal religion," and prohibited the church from owning any property. As a result, during the New Testament era and the period that followed, believers gathered in small groups of families (see Rom 16:5; 1 Cor16:19; Phm 1:2) until Constantine "professionalized" the church.

This means that the Home Church is the most original form of the church: The first church in the west was founded at Lydia’s home in Philippi, in Macedonia. Even today, the modern church planting movement has relied heavily on the Home Church concept; the growth of the Home Church "movement" has merely built upon these examples to create permanent networks of Home Church gatherings.

Question #2: Isn't a church a building?
A church is not a building — it is a gathering of the faithful.

Yang: Christian history has shown us that a church does not necessarily have to have a sanctuary, and a gathering that takes place in a sanctuary is not necessarily a church. In short, a church is not embodied in a physical construction. A church exists in any place where born-again Christians gather in the name of Jesus, worship God and preach the Gospel. While sacred places and formal rituals are inspirational and uplifting, they are secondary elements to the spiritual family of Christ-followers themselves. The Home Church concept seeks to return to that fundamental concept, so as to reconnect with the vital origins of Christianity and its role as a way of life.

The truth is that for all of the advantages of the traditional church, there are also drawbacks. Traditional churches offer expansive community and many ways for believers to interact with one another. Yet this can also make services feel overwhelming and impersonal. Traditional churches provide a rich array of programs. Yet these programs require time and expense and administrative focus that can take away from the core basics of worship and evangelism. Home Churches, as a stand-alone network or as a complement to traditional churches, offer a simpler way of peer-based worship that enables engagement and participation by all members, with no resource requirements beyond what the members provide themselves.

Question #3: What are the advantages of the Home Church's small size compared to traditional churches?
The Home Church encourages people to think of church as “home”

Yang: It's often noted that traditional churches are program-oriented —they are focused on bringing people to the church. This can result in highly structured worship services that present a "learning curve," and that require orientation and introduction for newcomers and nonbelievers to feel comfortable. Traditional churches do their best to welcome new people to congregations, but fitting in can still be an intimidating prospect.

In the Home Church, people quickly find themselves feeling at home because they are in a home! Home Churches are all about bringing the church to people.

The hosts of a Home Church gathering, whom we usually refer to as " å®¶é•· - Spiritual Heads of The Family", act in the role of the mother and father of a large family, welcoming members and helping them get comfortable as soon as they enter.

The goal of the Home Church is to make worship into a part of one's lifestyle. Location, time, day of week are secondary to that notion, and as a result, we make them flexible.

For Staten Island Home Church, families take turns to host gatherings — not just in order to share the burden, but so that we can share our lifestyles with one another. There is of course no pressure to host; families are used by God to host gatherings at their homes based on their availability and resources.

Gatherings are usually held on weekdays at 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm. Members often come 15 minutes in advance to prepare themselves with prayer, then share dinner together. Dinner is not just about a meal, but about creating a time when everyone can relax and share their lives, testimonies and prayer requests, to bring everyone closer together. We try to make sure the preparation of the meal will not become a burden for the host by asking everyone to bring a dish, pot-luck style - another way that we seek to make the experience a shared one.

Continue reading here

Friday, January 7, 2011

Why Organic Church Is Not Exactly a Movement - Excellent!

If the driving force of any movement or phenomenon is not Jesus Christ, we are building castles in the air. A response to "Long Live the Organic Church." by Frank Viola

Words are funny things. Sometimes a word can get into the drinking water of a subculture and morph into clay. A word becomes clay when it loses its universal meaning and becomes molded and shaped to mean different things to different people.

Enter the phrase organic church.

Organic church, or "organic expression of the church," or "organic church life" are terms that owe a debt to one man who's rarely mentioned in these discussions—British author and teacher T. Austin Sparks. As far as I know, he is the first person to use this term, and he used it often.

When T. Austin Sparks employed the word organic to refer to church, he was not speaking of a system, a method, a technique, or even a movement. Instead, he was speaking of the particular expression a church takes when she is living according to her God-given nature as a living organism.

Note his words:

God's way and law of fullness is that of organic life. In the Divine order, life produces its own organism, whether it be vegetable, animal, human, or spiritual. This means that everything comes from the inside. Function, order, and fruit issue from this law of life within. It was solely on this principle that what we have in the New Testament came into being. Organized Christianity has entirely reversed this order.
Taking my cue from Sparks, I've been using the terms organic church and organic expression of the church since 1993.

For Sparks, myself, and many others, organic church refers to a body of believers who are learning to live by the indwelling life of Christ together. And out of that living, the church takes on a certain expression. That expression is marked by some of the following features: the every-member functioning of the body, the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ, consensual decision making, open-participatory gatherings, and passing through seasons (meaning the church is not tied down to ritual, but moves according to the season she finds herself in).

Today the phrase organic church is in vogue, but it has been converted to clay.

Some mold it as a method of church to win souls and change the world for Christ, a sentiment that harkens back to D. L. Moody and J. R. Mott. These advocates see the church as a soul-winning station. Its chief mission is the evangelization of the world.

Others mold it as a synonym for house church. A house church is simply a group of Christians that meets in a home for their corporate worship. That can take countless forms and expressions. House churches can range from institutional services in a living room with pews firmly bolted to the floor, to glorified Bible studies, supper-fests, "bless-me" clubs, healthy Christian communities, or first-rate cults.

As I've often said, meeting in a home doesn't make you a church any more than sitting in a donut shop makes you a police officer (no offense to police officers; the better part of my family is in law enforcement!). There's nothing magical about meeting in a home. And the living room, while a great place to gather, should never be the Christian's passion.

Consequently, those who are regarded as voices of what some are calling the organic church movement do not agree on what the church is, nor how she expresses herself on the earth. Nor do they see eye to eye on God's ultimate intention.

That said, organic church is not a monolith, and therefore, it cannot rightly be called a movement.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that there is a phenomenon today where countless Christians are leaving institutional forms of church and exploring non-traditional forms of church in pursuit of authentic, shared-life community.

I've been gathering in organic expressions of the church (as defined above) for the last 21 years. And from my observations, many of the people who are leaving the institutional form of church presently are leaving because they are following a spiritual instinct. They are saying and thinking, "There has got to be more to Jesus Christ and his body than this." Or as Reggie McNeal once put it, "A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason. They are not leaving because they have lost their faith. They are leaving the church to preserve their faith."

Some are calling this a move of God. Others see it as a departure from God's will (for them, leaving the institutional form of church means leaving church itself). And of course others are calling it a movement.

Nevertheless, here are a few observations regarding the drive to experience organic church life. Note that this is how the terrain looks from my hill. I'm looking at the backs of the rocks while others may see their fronts:

1. The return to more organic forms of church (church as organism rather than church as institution) is nothing new. The U.S. has had two such phenomena already. One occurred in the late '60s and early '70s. Many young people in America were coming to Christ and finding authentic community. It was later hijacked by an authoritarian movement that smothered and killed it. The other occurred in the late '80s and early '90s.

2. The impulse to return to organic church life has happened historically in other times and places. You can find it among the Radical Reformers, the Anabaptists in particular. It had a beautiful start in Plymouth, England, with what later became known as the Plymouth Brethren, and still later in China among those who were tagged the Little Flock. (Each ended up in a different place from where they began, but that's another discussion.)

3. All of the above streams of the Christian faith didn't set out to change the world. That wasn't their governing motive. They instead consecrated themselves to please the Lord and to make a home for him on this earth. They sought to return to the centrality of Jesus Christ and the living experience of his body. As a result of that, some of them had a profound influence on their surrounding societies. But that wasn't their goal.

4. Movement mentality always seems to seep into any genuine move of God. I'm defining movement here as the idea that big is better and numbers mean success. Historically, the church of Jesus Christ passes through seasons. Some of those seasons are marked by revivals where many souls are brought into the kingdom of God. At such times, it's almost effortless to lead people to Christ. But while revivals produce numerical growth, they do not produce depth. We are wise to observe that Paul planted approximately 13 churches in his lifetime. The apostle was far more concerned with building quality—"gold, silver, and precious stone"—than he was with amassing big numbers (see 1 Cor. 3).

5. Historically, movements become monuments (or they go off the rails) when Jesus Christ is not front and center, the beating heart and foundation. When some other thing—even a good thing like trying to change the world, saving souls, or multiplying churches—replaces the pursuit of Christ, we lose our way.

All told: There is a phenomenon going on today. Perhaps a move of God's Spirit (?). But it's nothing new. It's simply a repeat of past currents. What will determine its success, longevity, and quality is not any human technique or method. The cutting-edge must be Jesus Christ as the only foundation, the centrality, and the supremacy. I am keenly aware that virtually every Christian bulbously claims that Jesus is the center of what they're doing. But listen to the rhetoric carefully, and you'll discover if it's Christ or some other thing that's being pushed and promoted.

So many things can replace our Lord. But God's eternal purpose—that which has been in his heart since before time—will never be fulfilled if our first rattle out of the box is a new way of doing church, a method for multiplying churches, or a technique to change the world. God's purpose will only be restored if we blindly and singularly make Christ our pursuit, our life, and our motive. Everything else will flow out of that.

Frank Viola is the author of a series of books on radical church restoration, including Reimagining Church, From Eternity to Here, Finding Organic Church, and Pagan Christianity (co-authored with George Barna).

Related articles here:
Long Live Organic Church!
Long Live the Organic Church: A Response

Long Live the Organic Church: A Response

We can live faithfully in the moment while attempting to transform society.
Neil Cole

My wife is very health conscious and buys groceries at places that sell organic food. I found out quickly that organic groceries go bad more quickly than those that contain artificial preservatives. Is that true for all things organic, even churches? Will our movement eventually die? Is there an expiration date for organic church?

Christianity Today's Mark Galli wrote an article in his online SoulWork column last week titled "Long Live Organic Church!" In it he expresses some admiration but also concern for the wellbeing of some of the thought leaders of the organic church movement. And he worries that the bitter disappointment of seeing the inevitable failure of our movement may cause us to become bitter and fall out of service.

The concerns he expresses are not just valid; they are haunting realizations I have lived with for over a decade. Sustainability, longevity, and the threat of institutionalization are all subjects I have thought about considerably. On the other hand, holding unreal expectations and the disillusionment that can result has not ever been a concern of mine.

What is success?

I do not live for success but to follow Christ every day. If, when my life ends, I have only a handful of followers of Jesus that can carry on his work, I will not be ashamed to meet my Lord. Reading 2 Timothy 4, Paul was in much the same place, but he said he finished the course and kept the faith. He also transformed the world! He planted seeds that bore fruit for generations to come. There were some things put in place that would bring lasting change throughout the centuries. There were other things that lasted only a generation or two. I think that is the way of true awakenings. Some new ideas stick forever, others only for a time.

My mentor, Bob Logan, has said, "Success is finding out what God wants you to do and doing it." I think that is really the truth. As long as there is a living and loving God, this success is available to us all.

I have held firmly to a quote from the late missiologist Ralph Winter: "Risk is not to be evaluated in terms of the probability of success, but in terms of the value of the goal."

Can we change the world?

We are to make disciples of all the nations to the ends of the earth. In doing so, Paul and his associates turned the whole world upside down (Acts 17:6).

Is transformation of society the true mark of a movement? Yes, I think it is. As I have said to many who question our legitimacy, it will not be contemporary experts and critics who will give us our validity, but future historians. I often think of future historians and their perspective when I look at things; it helps to gain a bigger and broader perspective of the here and now.

If we truly saturate our society with vital followers of Christ capable of making disciples, the world will change. I believe that simply connecting God's children to their spiritual Father in such a way that they listen to his voice and courageously follow his lead will transform society in broader, more holistic, and longer lasting ways than anything else we try.

The change, however, will not be for every generation. In fact, it could very well be that our most serious problems are caused by thinking the decisions we make today will be permanent. We end up establishing methods without the people hearing from God themselves and making their own choices. The result is a lifeless religious institution.

Can we change the future?

Homer Simpson once said, "I guess people never really change; or, they quickly change and then quickly change back again." In a real sense, all transformation is only momentary. There is a reason for this: We are called to live in the moment. Love is the fulfillment of all righteousness and it is always a choice. We are to love God with our whole being … every day. Who you are is really a lifetime of decisions made in specific moments, which make up the person you see in the mirror. God wants us to choose him every moment of every day, not just once at a middle-school retreat campfire.

Each generation must face its own tests and make its own choices. Our children do not become Christians because we choose to follow Christ, but because they do. If they are only living out the choices of their parents, their faith is not true and will remain fruitless religious conformity. This is also true for religious organizations.

What can we leave behind for future generations?

An example. I have learned much by studying the lives of people like Paul, Count Zinzendorf, John Wesley, and Watchman Nee. Perhaps our grandchildren can study our lives and learn something to apply to their own generation. Hopefully, they won't mindlessly do what we did any more than selling tickets to a seat in the pew will work for me like it did for Wesley. The process of contextualizing truth for a new generation is dynamic and produces more than better methods. It results in more enlightened leaders as well.

Written enlightenment. Many today cite a book written almost a century ago by Anglican missionary Roland Allen: Missionary Methods: St Paul's or Ours? When I write, I think first about the immediate impact upon a leader today, but I also wonder what relevance the book will have 75 years from now. I probably don't hit the second target very often (the first target is also debatable), but I do aim for it. We all stand on the broad shoulders of previous generations.

Changes in cultural values and laws. Sometimes the work of a few becomes a legacy to the many. Where once slavery was the norm, today it is seen as an abomination because a few people (like Wilberforce and the Quakers) instigated a movement. Some changes in values do shape future culture. Our legacy can be more than a street named after us, or a lecture hall on some college in the Midwest.

All of these changes can be lasting and inform the future, but nonetheless the leaders of the future will have to face their own tests and make their own choices.

Neil Cole is executive director of Church Multiplication Associates and author of Organic Church, Organic Leadership, Search & Rescue, Cultivating a Life for God and the forthcoming Church 3.0.

Related and response articles:
Why Organic Church Is Not Exactly a Movement by Frank Viola
Long Live Organic Church!

Long Live Organic Church!

But what do we do if the world isn't transformed?
Mark Galli

I love the work that Neil Cole is doing—and Alan Hirsch (The Forgotten Ways), Bob Roberts (Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World), Frank Viola (Finding Organic Church), and many, many others.

In one form or another, they are champions of "organic church." The term is fluid, but it contains at least three ingredients: Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it, a focus on people (vs. programs) and mission (vs. institutional maintenance), and a vision to transform the world.

As Neil Cole put it in his book Organic Church, "It is not enough to fill our churches; we must transform our world." He puts it similarly in his latest effort, Church 3.0. The book is ostensibly about how to shift from program-driven and clergy-led institutions to churches that are "relational, simple, intimate, and viral." Still, says Cole, "Changing the church is not the idea of this book … . The only reason to shift from Church 2.0 to Church 3.0 is to change the world."

I love the passion. And the prophetic word to institutionalism (believe me, I know the evils of institutionalism: I'm an Anglican!). And the vision to make Christ's love and grace known to the four corners of the planet.

What I worry about is the coming crash of organic church. And after that, I worry about the energetic men and women at the forefront of the movement. Will they become embittered and abandon the church, and maybe their God?

On not kidding ourselves

That the organic church movement will crash, I have no doubt. Every renewal movement in church history has either derailed immediately or produced temporary renewal at the expense of long-term unintended consequences. Church historians tells us that in 11th- and 12th-century Europe, churches and chapels sprang up all over the continent, signaling a revival of faith after the centuries formerly called "the dark ages." It was one of the most viral, church-planting movements in history. Unfortunately, it nurtured a fervency that longed to transform the world for Christ—which soon bore fruit in the Crusades.

Other examples of viral, organic faith gone to seed are found in Calvin's Geneva, Puritan America, and the imperialistic mission movement of the 19th century. A careful reading of these events suggests that the reformers were nothing but well-intentioned, devoted followers of Jesus just trying to make a difference in the world. And that they did—one could say they changed their worlds for the good in significant ways. But the unintended consequences—especially for the reputation of the church and Christians—make their efforts an arguable trade-off. Not exactly the type of transformation we dream of.

Take away the extreme examples, and look at the ongoing, normal, everyday life of the local church, century after century. It is not a bright example of evil, but merely good intentions in a coma. Institutional. Programmatic. And full of people whose lives look anything but transformed. Churches time and again, in culture after culture, look like they are composed of nothing but sinners. We are kidding ourselves if we think, finally, our generation will turn things around.

This is precisely why many of my seminary classmates have abandoned ministry. They ran into a brick wall of legalism or lethargy or just plain Christian hardness of heart and said, "Enough is enough." I have one California friend who would much rather put up with the headaches of the business world than those of the church. I dare say every reader of this column knows one or more ministry leaders who are burned out and angry.

So, when the organic church movement has run its course—maybe in this generation, or maybe in two or three—then what? What will become of those who have given their best years and their hard earned fortunes to the cause only to see that the world is not, in fact, transformed, or that they have sown the seeds of some bitter unintended consequence? Or what if the church never quite gets it and reverts to its old institutional self? I fear they may become bitter at the church and at God. It would be perfectly understandable if they did. It is a terrible thing to be disappointed by God when you've sacrificed all to promote what you think has been his purpose.

But it is in the midst of such disappointment—even inevitable disappointment—that we see afresh Paul's wisdom in encouraging us to be "obedient from the heart" (Rom. 6:17).

A more excellent way

The fact that everything we undertake will fail to produce the results we hope for is not a reason to do nothing. Far from it. The mistake we sometimes make is doing only those things we imagine will make a difference. When that is the case, our motive—the thing the drives us—is change. If change doesn't happen, or happen in the way we expect, we have no recourse but to fall into a funk. But there is a more excellent way.

That is the way of love, or more particularly, loving obedience. Jesus doesn't call us to make a difference in the world, let alone to transform the world. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:13-16), he does tell us that we will be "salt"—that is, we will preserve the world from complete self-destruction. No small thing that, but hardly world transformation. He also tells us we will be "light," that is, we'll help people see his truth. But when people see truth, often only hardness of heart sets in. Or worse: hostility erupts, and the bearers of the light are thrown into prison and killed, and the recipients of light remain in darkness.

Salt and light—that's about the extent of our effectiveness. Nothing about transforming the world through our efforts. Make no mistake: Jesus does indeed call us into the world to do stuff: preach, baptize, teach, and heal. But he does not promise results. Faithful diligence in such tasks will sometimes change lives and change communities. Whenever this happens, we can rejoice that God has permitted us to see him at work! But a lot of times when the church has obeyed faithfully, we've only received hardship—violence that seems to make things worse for victim and perpetrator alike.

The fact is that sometimes God calls us to do things that make no sense to those who calculate the effectiveness of every act. Like his calling a 20th century Albanian nun to comfort the dying of Calcutta in their last hour. Or like the 18th century Bartholomew de las Casas, who felt called to speak out against brutal treatment of indigenous people in the Americas—only to be completely ignored in his lifetime. Or going further back, like the patriarch who was told he should take his only son—the product of miracle and grace—and sacrifice him on Mt. Moriah.

Our God appears not to be particularly taken with efficiency, effectiveness, or our changing his world. He is mostly interested in our obedience. What he longs for is not people who make a difference in the world, but people who listen for his call and lovingly respond—no matter how absurd or impossible the command.

When the focus is on loving obedience to a loving Father, what difference does it make if it doesn't seem to do any good? What difference does it make if the world or church is not transformed by our lights? When our motive is results, we are bound to be disappointed, because we live in a tragically fallen world that is stubbornly resistant to transformation. But when we focus on obedience to a sovereign heavenly Father, who in love is redeeming his creation in his own time and way (often mysteriously)—well, how could we ever be dismayed?

In his providence, God has raised up in our day men and women who rail against church-as-usual, church-as-program, church-as-institutional-management. They are telling us something true and vital about the church. They are disturbing the religious establishment, upsetting our pious social order, causing a holy chaos! These are prophets in our midst whom we should honor, and for whom we should have ears to hear.

And for whom we should pray—that they would keep their eyes not on the prize of transformation, but that their ears may continue to hear and obey that still small voice that called them into ministry in the first place. Only then will they be among us, challenging and energizing us, even when things look as disappointing as ever.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today. He is the author of Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untameable God (Baker).

Response articles:
Long Live the Organic Church: A Response by Neil Cole
Why Organic Church Is Not Exactly a Movement by Frank Viola

Monday, December 20, 2010

Billy Graham’s Prophecy

Frank Viola

The following quote was authored by Billy Graham in the year 1965. Turns out it was a prophetic word that has come to pass in our time.

Multitudes of Christians within the church are moving toward the point where they may reject the institution that we call the church. They are beginning to turn to more simplified forms of worship. They are hungry for a personal and vital experience with Jesus Christ. They want a heartwarming personal faith. Unless the church quickly recovers its authoritative Biblical message, we may witness the spectacle of millions of Christians going outside the institutional church to find spiritual food.


Quoted in “World Aflame”, pp. 79-80.

Here is another priceless quote by Graham:

I think one of the first things I would do would be to get a small group of eight or ten or twelve men around me that would meet a few hours a week and pay the price. It would cost them something in time and effort. I would share with them everything I have, over a period of years. Then I would actually have twelve ministers among the laymen who in turn could take eight or ten or twelve more and teach them. I know one or two churches that are doing that, and it is revolutionizing the church. Christ, I think, set the pattern. He spent most of his time with twelve men. He didn’t spend it with a great crowd. In fact, every time he had a great crowd it seems to me that there weren’t too many results. The great results, it seems to me, came in his personal interview and in the time he spent with the twelve.

Quoted in “Billy Graham Speaks: The Evangelical World Prospect,” Christianity Today, vol.3, no.1, p.5, Oct.13, 1958.

How Ambition Destroys Discernment !

Frank Viola

Over the weekend, I caught a documentary on the Jim Jones episode which occurred some 30 years ago. What a horror story. The footage was remarkable. I didn’t know that there were recordings of Jones instructing those in his fold to “drink the Koolaid.” (It wasn’t exactly Koolaid.)

Jones was typical of leaders of his ilk. According to the experts who knew and studied him, he was highly gifted, charismatic (in personality), humorous, like-able, knew how to make people feel “important,” yet … an egomaniac, very insecure, fixated on his own importance, paranoid, easily jealous, a shameless self-promoter, corrupt and dishonest.

Not long after watching that program, I was informed that a person I know joined a movement that’s exclusive, sectarian, elitist, and marked by dishonesty, unmitigated arrogance, paranoia, jealousy, and the tearing down of others falsely. All leaving behind a long, long trail of hurt and devastated Christians. (I realize that this description fits many different movements, sadly.)

The interesting thing about it is that this person had been educated in the dangers of all of the above. And I’m aware of at least one person who warned him specifically. Yet still … he’s become a “true believer” of this movement. (I realize that this description fits many different people, sadly.)

“How does this happen?,” you might ask, as you shake your head in disbelief.

One major element in the mix is spiritual ambition. There are many “dreamers” who wish to become something for God which, in reality, they aren’t cut out for, called to, or are not ready for. Such benighted ambition blinds them to truth and honesty, and it smothers both their conscience and their discernment. Good judgment goes out the window … and so does integrity. It renders the person utterly “clueless” as to what’s really going on. And they aren’t in touch with any of this.

It’s both sad and fascinating to say the least.

A word of advice to the ambitious. Follow your conscience, never let your integrity be compromised, pay attention to the warning signs, and ultimately, throw away the calender and let God promote you. Have the attitude: If God doesn’t promote me then I won’t be promoted.

To put it in a sentence: decline the Koolaid when it’s being passed to you.

Selah.

The Cost of Challenging the Status Quo: A Lesson from Joseph Lister

Frank Viola

If you happen to have the heart of a revolutionary, this story may be an encouragement to you.

Way back in the year 1860, the science of bateriology was still in its infancy. In that day, surgeons would operate with bare hands and their instruments weren not heat-sterilized nor disinfected chemically. As a result, the post-operative mortality rate was kicking around 90% in numerous hospitals.

In that context, a man named Joseph Lister launched a passionate campaign against the unsanitory practices and poor hygeine of surgeons.

Most doctors scoffed at Lister’s campaign. They felt that his heartfelt plea to have surgery that was “antiseptic” was over-the-top and misguided. He was ridiculed, critized, and dismissed by the majority of surgeons and doctors.

But despite the negative reactions he received by the medical profession, he found one convert – Dr. Joseph Lawrence.

Basing his work on Lister’s research, Lawrence developed an antibacterial liquid that was manufactured in one city. Some years later, around 1880, the product was named after Josph Lister, who had then become a well-known and controversial figure on two continents.

Interestingly, surgeons who began employing Lister’s ideas of good hygene were having fewer post-operative infections as well as increased survival rates. “Listerism” was being hotly debated in medical journals by competent doctors who were both “pro” and “against.” It was also being discussed in the popular media.

This antiseptic liquid, inspired by Lister and made accessible by Lawrence, came to be known as LISTERINE.

So the next time you swril some LISTERINE in your mouth, just remember that it came at the price of one man’s reputation. A man who was ridiculed, criticized, and dismissed by the professional medical community. But who . . . after many years, was vindicated.

Thank you Mr. Lister for not giving your convictions up.

May your tribe increase!

I happen to be a fan of LISTERINE, cool mint flavor. And my close friends are happy about that. :-)

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Rethinking the Five-Fold Ministry - Must read!

by Frank Viola

Undoubtedly, some who have read this book are wondering: “Frank, do you believe in ‘the five-fold ministry’? And do you believe God is restoring ‘the five-fold ministry’ mentioned in Ephesians Chapter 4?” In this appendix, I would like to answer that question.

First off, my answer is largely hinged on what one means by “the five-fold ministry.” In other words, what “five-fold ministry” are we talking about? Are we talking about the two-hundred-year old doctrine of the restoration of “the five-fold ministry?” Or are we talking about the ascension gifts that Paul had in mind when he penned Ephesians 4:9–16?

The Making of a Doctrine

In nineteenth-century England, Christians were ripe to embrace apocalyptic prophecies about the coming Millennial Age. The upheaval that the French Revolution produced left God’s people wishing for a reign of peace that would set all things right.

In the year 1824, Edward Irving, a Presbyterian pastor in Scotland, began teaching that “the five-fold ministry” of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers had disappeared from the church and were in need of restoration. According to Irving, the restoration of these ministries would usher in the Millennial Kingdom of Christ on the earth.

Irving and his followers began the Catholic Apostolic Church in 1832. Its chief purpose was to restore “the five-fold ministry” and usher in the Millennial Kingdom. The Church ordained twelve “apostles” who were to be the last days equivalent of the original Twelve whom Jesus appointed. Henry Drummond, a wealthy banker from England, became the leader of the Church. Drummond himself took the highest position—“apostle to Scotland.”

It was prophesied that these twelve apostles would be the last apostles to appear on earth before Christ’s return. (This is a throwback to Mani of Persia of the third century who labeled himself the “Apostle of Light”—the very last apostle of Jesus.)

Eventually the twelve apostles of the Catholic Apostolic Church died (the last one dying in 1901). Upon their death, the Church expired in England. In Germany, however, the Catholic Apostolic Church ordained twelve more apostles and took the name the “New Apostolic Church.”

In 1896, an erstwhile Congregational minister named John Alexander Dowie founded the Christian Catholic Church. In 1901, with five thousand followers, Dowie established the “City of Zion” in north-east Illinois. In 1904, Dowie revealed that he had been divinely commissioned to be the “First Apostle.” He then told his followers to anticipate the full restoration of apostolic Christianity. In 1906, the community of believers in the City of Zion began to break down. And Dowie passed away the following year.

Following the famed Azusa Street revival in 1906 in Los Angeles, California, the emphasis on the restoration of “the five-fold ministry” and “a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit just before the return of Christ” reappeared. And a new generation of apostles emerged. Luigi Francescon (“apostle to Italy”), Ivan Voronaev (“apostle to the Slavs”), and T.B. Barratt (“apostle to Europe”) were just some of them. Pentecostal denominations in Wales, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States elected and ordained colleges of apostles to govern their denominations.

As the years rolled on, the restoration of “the five-fold ministry” doctrine somewhat faded. But it reemerged again with a revival spawned at Sharon Orphanage in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada in 1948. The “New Order of the Latter Rain” movement, as it was called, was prophesied to restore “the five-fold ministry” to prepare for “the manifestation of the sons of God” on the earth.
But when the waters of revival receded, the restoration of “the five-fold ministry” doctrine faded again until it was resuscitated in the Charismatic Movement of the late 1960s. In the late 70s, the doctrine’s flame began to dim again until a group of men resurrected it with new fervor in the mid-1990s.

In 1996, Peter Wagner led a conference at Fuller Theological Seminary entitled National Symposium on the “Post-Denominational Church.” This conference produced a new movement called the “New Apostolic Movement,” which Wagner claims is sweeping the globe with a new way of doing church. The churches who are part of this movement are being labeled “New Apostolic Churches.” In 1999, Wagner sought to organize the movement under the name “International Coalition of Apostles” with Wagner as the “Presiding Apostle.” The movement claims to be restoring “the five-fold ministry” today.

Parenthetically, the churches in the new apostolic movement are vanilla Charismatic institutional churches replete with the office of modern pastor (now called “apostle”), Sunday sermons, pulpit, pews, church buildings, the five hundred year-old order of worship, music led by a worship team, etc.

Point: The doctrine of the restoration of “the five-fold ministry” is over 180 years old. And it’s been repackaged from movement to movement.

Running the Cart Over the Horse

So is God going to restore “the five-fold ministry”? To my mind, that’s the wrong question. It’s pushing the cart before the horse. The ascension gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4 are gifted people that God gives to the body of Christ as gifts.They are the natural outgrowth and by-product of organic church life.

All in all, there are twenty gifts mentioned in the New Testament.1 If a group of believers gathers around Jesus Christ alone (rather than a doctrine, a theological system, or a ritual) - and they are void of a clergy system - then that group will eventually produce all the gifts and gifted ones that exist within the body of Christ.

It’s no mistake that Paul uses the human physical body as an apt metaphor to describe the way the body of Christ functions. When a baby girl is born, most of her physical capabilities are not present. She can’t ride a bicycle, add and subtract numbers, or eat with a fork and knife.

However, within her body, she possesses the genetic codes that will produce the physical development by which to carry out these capabilities. If she is fed and nurtured properly, in time, these abilities will naturally develop within her. She will organically grow into them. Why? Because they are organic to her species as a human being. They are the product of human life.

In the same way, when an organic church is born, it possesses within its spiritual DNA all of the giftings that are in Jesus Christ. But it takes time for them to develop and emerge. (Unfortunately, we live in a day when many ministers don’t seem to understand this spiritual principle. Hence, they try to force the exercise of gifts and ministries in the body prematurely.)

What is needed, then, is not a restoration of the so-called “five-fold ministry.” What’s needed is the restoration of organic church life. And that is what God is seeking to restore today as He has in every generation.

Therefore, if we can discover how a church is born from God’s perspective and how it is to be nurtured and maintained, then we will see a restoration of all the gifts that are in Christ in the way that they were meant to be expressed.

Since I’ve been meeting in organic churches over the last twenty years, I’ve made a startling discovery: The gifts of the Holy Spirit function very differently in an organic expression of the church than they do in the institutional church. The gift of prophecy, for example, that comes up out of the soil of authenticb life looks profoundly different from the way it’s packaged in the typical Pentecostal/Charismatic church. (The latter is largely based on imitating others.)

In the 1980s, I was part of a spontaneous expression of organic church life. Most of us who were gathering at that time came from the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition. We functioned freely in spiritual gifts as they were modeled to us by that tradition. A number of years later a group whose background was anti-Pentecostal/Charismatic joined us, and we had a first-class dilemma on our hands.

After a blood-letting church split, the Lord graciously showed us that both groups needed to lay down their beliefs and practice of spiritual gifts and leave them at the foot of the cross.Though it was difficult, we let our ideas and practice of the gifts go into death. In a year’s time, something remarkable happened.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit were resurrected in our gatherings. However, they looked very different from what any of us had ever before seen. The Pentecostal/Charismatic packaging was utterly stripped away. And what was left was a pure expression of the Holy Spirit that glorified, unveiled, and lifted up the Lord Jesus Christ. As a result, the two groups came into a unified experience of the Holy Spirit’s work.
Consequently, the pressing question is: Are we going to get serious about discovering how to gather around Jesus Christ in an organic way? Or are we going to blithely ignore New Testament principle and for the next two hundred years continue to hope (and prophesy) that “the five-fold ministry” will one day be restored?

Again, God’s way of raising up the ascension gifts is by restoring organic body life. The ascension gifts don’t magically appear because someone writes a book prophesying that they’re just around the corner. Nor should we assume that they’re restored when someone claims to be the “First,” the “Last,” or the “New Apostle.”

Authentic apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherd/teachers are gifted members who grow up in organic churches - not as leaders, but as brethren--equal in status to everyone else in the church. Because they have grown up out of the soil of church life, they have been tested and proven safe to the Kingdom of God and to the Lord’s children. Their outstanding landmark is that they glorify, reveal, present, magnify, and bring into clear view the Lord Jesus Christ in unusual depths and practical experience.

This is the heritage of the Ephesians 4 ascension gifts. It was true for all apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds/teachers in the first century. And Jesus Christ has not changed (Heb. 13:8).

The Peril of a Wrong Environment

So what happens when gifted Christians are reared in a human organization built on unbiblical systems rather than growing up naturally in an organic expression of the body of Christ? To put it another way, what happens when a gifted Christian’s only experience is in the modern institutional church?

The answer? Mixture with a capital M.

Add to that a footnote: Malfunction.

What happens when you remove polar bears out of their natural habitat? If they survive (and some do not), they don’t function as God designed. They lose their ability to reproduce.

What happens when lions are caged and domesticated from birth? They lose their predatory and killer instincts. They lose something of the natural functioning with which God wired them.

Over the past decade, I’ve met scores of men who were self-proclaimed prophets and apostles. Some were genuinely gifted. Some had the gift of teaching. Others had authentic gifts of healing. Others had a genuine operation of the word of knowledge.

But most lacked any real depth in Christ and very little experience in embracing His cross.

Why is this? Because of the institution that raised them up. Or, in some cases, because they raised themselves up in isolation from other Christians. (The latter is an equally abnormal environment for a Christian to be nurtured in.)

To put it in a sentence, such men didn’t grow up in their proper habitat. Few if any of them grew up in organic body life where they were simply brothers among other brothers. Few if any spent any time in a New Testament expression of church life where their weaknesses and blindspots were exposed to others. Instead, most were part of several institutional churches and launched out into independent ministry on their own. As Watchman Nee once observed, “The tragedy in Christian work today is that so many of the workers have simply gone out, they have not been sent.”

The New Testament never envisions such a situation.

To place my concern into a question, where are the churches that the “new apostles” have planted that are gathering under the headship of Jesus Christ without a clergy, where the members know one another deeply and are experiencing a depth in Christ, where decisions are made by consensus, and where every member functions in the meetings without any man controlling, directing, facilitating, or dominating?
Still more disappointing, every titled “apostle” in the new apostolic movement that I know of fiercely defends those church practices that are rooted in pagan tradition and have been hindering the headship of Jesus Christ and the full functioning of His body for the last eighteen hundred years. (If you don’t understand that last sentence, I refer you to my book, Pagan Christianity.) For these reasons, I’m monumentally unimpressed with the “new apostolic movement.”

What Are the Ascension Gifts?

When the ascension gifts emerge organically in a church, their chief function is to nurture and encourage the believing community toward spiritual maturity, unity, and every-member functioning.
I will now try to demystify the so-called “five-fold ministry” and discuss how each of the ascension gifts probably functioned in the first century:

Apostles. Apostles were extra-local, traveling, itinerant church planters. They were highly gifted individuals who were sent by the Lord and by a particular church to plant and equip new churches. Apostles enabled the church by giving it birth, raising it from the ground up. They also helped it walk on its own two feet. Apostles grew up in an organic expression of church life as nonleaders before they were sent out to plant churches of the same kind. And they always left the churches they planted on their own without administration or ritual.

Prophets. Prophets were people who had a clear vision of Jesus Christ and who were able to articulate it lucidly. Prophets enabled the church by speaking to it the present word of the Lord. Sometimes their words would simply reveal Christ to encourage, inspire, and comfort. Other times their words would cast spiritual vision. Prophets sought to restore God’s will whenever it had been lost. They sometimes confirmed the gifts and callings of other members and prepared the church for future trials.

Evangelists. Evangelists enabled the church by modeling the preaching of the good news to the lost. They were fearless souls who possessed an extraordinary boldness to share Christ with nonbelievers. And they had a genuine passion for the unsaved. The closest equivalent to an evangelist today is a natural-born salesman (an honest one of course).

Shepherd/teachers. Shepherd/teachers are two sides of the same gift. In Ephesians 4:11, the apostles, prophets, and evangelists are mentioned separately, while shepherds and teachers are joined together. Further, the first three ministries (apostles, prophets, and evangelists) are preceded by the word “some.” But the word “some” is attached to shepherds and teachers together. This indicates that shepherds/teachers are one gift.

The chief task of the shepherds/teachers was to help the church in times of personal crisis (shepherding) and to enlighten and cultivate the church’s spiritual life by revealing Christ through the exposition of Scripture (teaching). Shepherding was the private side of their ministry, teaching was the public side. The closest equivalent to a first-century shepherd/elder is a modern-day Christian counselor who is capable of teaching.

None of the ascension gifts dominated the meetings of the church. They were simply brothers and sisters in the body carrying out certain functions. In that connection, you would never see a first-century Christian sporting titles like “Apostle Delaquarius Epps,” “Prophetess Pamela Jones,” or “Evangelist Tarianna Dunson.” As we’ve already established, the use of honorific titles and offices were unknown to the early Christians.

Answering the Call

The burden of my heart is to see God’s people far less concerned with a “five-fold ministry” that’s supposed to be recovered someday and instead, focus their attention on discovering what the church is supposed to be according to the mind of God. Upon making this discovery, the Lord’s dear people will be faced with a decision. To answer the call of meeting around Jesus Christ alone in the way that He has prescribed. Or to remain chained to the unmovable traditions of men.

If the former path is taken, it will involve considerable cost. But all the giftings in Christ will eventually come forth in the way that He designed organically. And those gifts will never usurp or dilute the ministry of the entire body.

Would to God that all men and women who feel called to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds/teachers would soberly reexamine what these ministries were in the first century and in the thought of God. I believe that when this happens, many of them will be led into brand new directions. And those directions will undoubtedly lead them to break with cherished traditions and popular concepts. Yet only by these elements will the house of God begin to be restored on a broad scale.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

IN-CHURCH, OUT-of-CHURCH, FUTURE CHURCH

Andrew Strom.

I have met and fellowshipped with many wonderful Christian people over the years - from all kinds of backgrounds. But I just need to comment on this "In-church/ Out-of-church" thing - because it keeps cropping up.

Let me be clear about this. I meet wonderful "In-church" people all the time that I absolutely love - and I meet lovely "Out-of-church" people too that I absolutely love. One of the biggest problems is that often these two groups do not understand each other at all.

And neither do they necessarily see the need for a "future church" that is beyond anything that any of us are seeing - a church that is literally just like the Book of Acts. That is supposed to be our goal - but too often we are satisfied basically where we are.

CHALLENGES FOR the "IN-CHURCH"

Many of the Christians who are totally "in" the church system truly see the need for "change". They are not wanting to sit still. They see there has been a great "decline" in Christianity away from the old paths - and they are praying that God will move to restore and purify His Bride. I have met many godly, warm-hearted people like this who care passionately about God's kingdom and His true gospel. I usually get on very well with such ones because we share a common desire to see things "righted" - especially the gospel message that has become so diluted and lost.

I guess the biggest challenge that I see in these settings is that I believe God is about to move "outside the box" in such a drastic way that if we allow ourselves to be too attached to the current "system" or "way of church" - then we can easily get left behind. To get us back to true "Book of Acts" Christianity will take such a leap - and such change - that I wonder if we truly have it in us to go with Him  where He wants to go. How "loosely" do we hold all these things - our buildings, our "meeting formats", our labels, titles and ways of doing things? When these things are shaken or challenged, it is sometimes surprising to discover what a hold
they have on us - even if we think they don't. This is the biggest challenge that the "system"-type people face, I believe.

But our love of the true gospel and true "Bible" Christianity will take us a long way.

CHALLENGES FOR the "OUT-Of-CHURCH"

I have moved amongst many 'House-church' and "Out-of-church" type Christians (which are not the same thing) over the years. In fact I have been part of these circles myself at times. One of the biggest problems I have seen is that some of us really thought we had the major "answer" to the church's problems. Those of us in the 'House church' movement would think, "If only the church would get out of buildings and into houses and become more 'relational' - most of our problems would be solved!" We truly thought that simply by "changing boxes" we could get back the Book of Acts church! What we ended up with, of course, was simply the same people in a different "shell" - slightly more 'relational' - but hardly anything like the power and purity of the early Christians. We had changed the outward "form" but the POWER of Jesus Christ was still mostly lacking.

I can remember having arguments over "plurality of eldership", the precise "correct" way of taking the Lord's Supper, and all kinds of things. None of it seemed to make the slightest bit of difference. That is because the "outward" things and the 'form' of things are all "secondary". This is not where the power is. But it took such a long time to learn this lesson.

The "Out-of-church" people are even more radical. They often fellowship with almost no-one - and many of them will tell you that the organized church is the "whore of babylon", etc. A lot of them are lovely people with a real heart for people and for TRUTH. But some can be very judgmental and harsh. They will often "write off" church people as being totally bound by "religion". But I found  many of us in that circle had our own "anti-religion" religion going on! We despised having "leaders" or "organized" things of any kind. We said we believed in the "5 fold" ministries but we couldn't stand to have any actual "leaders" - even godly ones. And we were secretly filled with PRIDE - because we could see everything that was wrong with the "system". Man - did I have a "humbling" coming when I got into this mindset! I was so "religiously" anti-religious. I was so filled with arrogance and looked down my nose at so many "system" people! I "judged" them just because they went to a "building" on Sunday! God forgive me.

Of course, none of this is the answer either. I had to repent. I had to RENOUNCE very deeply this harsh "anti-religion" religion that made me so proud and arrogant towards people. I found that many of them loved Jesus just as much as I did. And many of them prayed more and were kinder, more loving and more godly than I'd ever been. I had been kidding myself. When it boiled right down, we "out-of-church" types were no closer to the Book of Acts than many of the "system" people that we judged so harshly. We just knew more "stuff" (supposedly). But clearly it wasn't the stuff that mattered.

It was only when I deeply repented and RENOUNCED this whole prideful mindset that God gradually began to show me what was really important. And it was not the "outward" stuff - though of course there is some importance to structure, etc.

Each of these things (below) I believe will be a crucial part of the FUTURE CHURCH that God wants to bring about. You could literally write a book about each one - they are so important. It was these very things that meant the early church SHONE FORTH the GLORY OF JESUS every day. Here they are-

We must have-
(1) An APOSTOLIC gospel being preached with Apostolic-type anointing and authority. (Whenever this has happened down through history there has been real Revival). -SO CRUCIAL.
(2) The powerful moving of the HOLY SPIRIT - filling people, healing people, convicting people, transforming people.
(3) REAL LOVE and an emphasis on ministering to the POOR.
(-Just like the early church).
(4) REAL DISCIPLES who actually "forsake all" to follow Jesus.
(5) REAL PRAYER - in the Holy Spirit. -And lots of it!!
(6) THE WHOLE BODY MINISTERING - Starting with the "5-fold" ministries - whose goal is to release the whole body into ministry.
(7) MIRACLES and HEALINGS. -These are a must!

Of course, we could go on and on. But let me just conclude by saying this:-

It doesn't matter if we are "In-church", Out-of-church, Over-churched or under-churched. If we don't have the above things (which the early church had in abundance) then we really don't have ANYTHING. It doesn't matter what we "know" or whether we meet in houses, barns, on the streets or in sun-porches. If we don't have these crucial things that the early church majored on, then we really
have NOTHING that matters.

So I don't really care if you are "out" churched, "over" churched, "thru" churched or "half" churched. We need to pursue and pursue until we GET REAL CHRISTIANITY BACK!! And none of us have got it - so we had all better repent of our pride and start seeking that which is lost! A glorious Bride beckons. What price are we willing to pay to see her glory restored?

Thursday, July 8, 2010

The Bible is NOT a Jigsaw Puzzle

Frank Viola

This article exposes the traditional way that most Christians - Protestant, evangelical, post-evangelical, and charismatic - have been taught to read, study, and use the New Testament. It then offers a brand new approach. “In handling the subject of ministry in the New Testament it is essential to remember the order in which the books of the New Testament were written. If we assume, as the order in which the books of the New Testament are now presented would lead us to assume, that the Gospels were written first, and then Acts and then the letters of Paul, beginning with Romans and ending with the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy to Titus and the Letter to Philemon, we shall never be able to understand the development of the institutions and the thought of the early church.” - Richard Hanson. Why is it that we Christians can divide up into thousands of different sects and all claim that we are following the Word of God?How is it that many of us can blithely embrace church practices and theological beliefs that are not rooted in Scriptural principle, yet read them back into the New Testament?

I submit that the problem is with our approach to the New Testament.

The approach most commonly used among modern Christians when studying the Bible is called “proof texting.” The origin of proof texting goes back to the late 1590’s. A group of men called Protestant Scholastics took the teachings of the Reformers and systematized them according to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

The Protestant Scholastics held that not only is the Scripture the Word of God, but every part of it is the Word of God in and of itself – irrespective of context. This set the stage for the idea that if we lift a verse out of the Bible, it is true in its own right and can be used to prove a doctrine or a practice.

When John Nelson Darby emerged in the mid 1800s, he built a theology based on this approach. Darby raised proof texting to an art form. In fact, it was Darby who gave fundamentalist and evangelical Christians a good deal of their presently accepted teachings. All of them are built on the proof texting method. Proof texting, then, became the way that we modern Christians approach the Bible. It is taught in every Protestant Bible School and seminary on earth.

As a result, we Christians rarely, if ever, get to see the NT as a whole. Rather, we are served up a dish of fragmented thoughts that are drawn together by means of fallen human logic. The fruit of this approach is that we have strayed far afield from the practice of the NT church. Yet we still believe we are being Biblical. Allow me to illustrate the problem with a fictitious story.

Meet Marvin Snurdly

Marvin Snurdly is a world renowned marital counselor. In his 20-year career as a marriage therapist, Marvin has counseled thousands of troubled marriages. He has an Internet presence. Each day hundreds of couples write letters to Marvin about their marital sob stories. The letters come from all over the globe. And Marvin answers them all.

A hundred years pass, and Marvin Snurdly is resting peacefully in his grave. He has a great, great grandson named Fielding Melish. Fielding decides to recover the lost letters of his great, great grandfather, Marvin Snurdly. But Fielding can only find 13 of Marvin’s letters. Out of the thousands of letters that Marvin wrote in his lifetime, only 13 have survived! Nine of them were written to couples in marital crisis. Four of them were written to individual spouses. These letters were all written within a 20-year time frame: From 1980 to 2000. Fielding Melish plans to compile these letters into a volume. But there is something interesting about the way Marvin wrote his letters that makes Fielding’s task somewhat difficult.

First, Marvin had an annoying habit of never dating his letters. No days, months, or years appear on any of the 13 letters. Second, the letters only portray half the conversation. The initial letters written to Marvin that provoked his responses no longer exist. Consequently, the only way to understand the backdrop of one of Marvin’s letters is by reconstructing the marital situation from Marvin’s response.

Each letter was written at a different time, to people in a different culture, dealing with a different problem. For example, in 1985, Marvin wrote a letter to Paul and Sally from Virginia, USA who were experiencing sexual problems early in their marriage. In 1990, Marvin wrote a letter to Jethro and Matilda from Australia who were having problems with their children. In 1995, Marvin wrote a letter to a wife from Mexico who was experiencing a mid-life crisis. Take note: 20 years – 13 letters – all written to different people at different times in different cultures – all experiencing different problems. It is Fielding Melish’s desire to put these 13 letters in chronological order. But without the dates, he cannot do this. So Fielding puts them in the order of descending length. That is, he takes the longest letter that Marvin wrote and puts it first. He puts Marvin’s second longest letter after that. He takes the third longest and puts it third. The compilation ends with the shortest letter that Marvin penned. 13 letters are arranged, not chronologically, but by their length. The volume hits the presses and becomes an overnight best seller. People are buying it by the truck loads.

100 years pass and The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly compiled by Fielding Melish stands the test of time. The work is still very popular. Another 100 years pass, and this volume is being used copiously throughout the Western World. (Marvin has been resting in his grave for 300 years now.) The book is translated into dozens of languages. Marriage counselors are quoting it left and right. Universities are employing it in their sociology classes. It is so widely used that someone gets a bright idea on how to make the volume easier to quote and handle.

What is that bright idea? It is to divide Marvin’s letters into chapters and numbered sentences (we call them verses). So chapters and verses are born in the Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly. But by adding chapter-and-verse to these once living letters, something changes that goes unnoticed. The letters lose their personal touch. Instead, they take on the texture of a manual. Different sociologists begin writing books about marriage and the family. Their main source? The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly. Pick up any book in the 24th century on the subject of marriage, and you will find the author quoting chapters and verses from Marvin’s letters.

It usually looks like this: In making a particular point, an author will quote a verse from Marvin’s letter written to Paul and Sally. The author will then lift another verse from the letter written to Jethro and Matilda. He will extract another verse from another letter. Then he will sew these three verses together upon which he will build his particular marital philosophy. Virtually every sociologist and marital therapist that authors a book on marriage does the same thing. Yet the irony is here. Each of these authors constantly contradicts the others, even though they are all using the same source! But that is not all. Not only have Marvin’s letters been turned into cold prose when they were originally living, breathing epistles to real people in real places. But they have devolved into a weapon in the hands of agenda-driven men. Not a few authors on marriage begin employing isolated proof texts from Marvin’s work to hammer away at those who disagree with their marital philosophy.

How can they do this? How is this being done? How are all of these sociologists contradicting each other when they are using the exact same source? It is because the letters have been lifted out of their historical context. Each letter has been plucked from its chronological sequence and taken out of its real life setting. Put another way, the letters of Marvin Snurdly have been transformed into a series of isolated, disjointed, fragmented sentences – free for anyone to lift one sentence from one letter, another sentence from another letter, paste them together to create the marital philosophy of their choice. An amazing story is it not? Well here is the punch line. Whether you realize it or not, I have just described your NT!

The Order of Paul’s Letters

Your NT is made up mostly of Paul’s letters. Paul of Tarsus wrote two thirds of it. He penned 13 letters in a 20-year time span. Nine letters were written to churches in different cultures, at different times, experiencing different problems. Four letters were written to individual Christians. The individuals who received those letters were also dealing with different issues at different times. Take note: 20 years – 13 letters – all written to different churches at different times in different cultures – all experiencing different problems.

In the early second century, someone took the letters of Paul and compiled them into a volume. The technical term for this volume is “canon.” Scholars refer to this compiled volume as “the Pauline canon.” It is essentially your NT with a few letters added afterwards, the four Gospels and Acts placed at the front, and Revelation tacked on the end.

At the time, no one knew when Paul’s letters were written. Even if they did, it would not have mattered. There was no precedent for alphabetical or chronological ordering. The first-century Greco-Roman world ordered its literature according to decreasing length. Look at how your NT is arranged. What do you find? Paul’s longest letter appears first. It is Romans. 1 Corinthians is the second longest letter, hence the reason why it follows Romans. 2 Corinthians is the third longest letter. Your NT follows this pattern until you come to that tiny little book called Philemon.

Here is the present order as it appears in your NT. The books are arranged according to descending length:

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

What, then, is the proper chronological order of these letters? According to the best available scholarship here is the order in which they were written:

Galatians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Colossians
Philemon
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Timothy
Titus
2 Timothy

The Addition of Chapters and Verses

In the year 1227, a professor at the University of Paris named Stephen Langton added chapters to all the books of the NT. Then in 1551, a printer named Robert Stephanus numbered the sentences in all of the books of the NT. According to Stephanus’ son, the verse divisions that his father created do not do service to the sense of the text. Stephanus did not use any consistent method. While riding on horseback from to Lyons, he versified the entire NT within Langton’s chapter divisions. So verses were born in the pages of holy writ in the year 1551. And since that time God’s people have approached the NT with scissors and glue, cutting-and-pasting isolated, disjointed sentences from different letters, lifting them out of their real-life setting and lashing them together to build floatable doctrines. Then calling it “the Word of God.” This half-baked approach still lives in our seminaries, Bible colleges, churches, Bible studies, and (tragically) our house churches today. Most Christians are completely out of touch with the social and historical events that lay behind each of the NT letters. Instead, they have turned the NT into a manual that can be wielded to prove any point. Chopping the Bible up into fragments makes this relatively easy to pull off.

"Eight Misguided Approaches to the Bible"

We Christians have been taught to approach the Bible in one of eight ways. See how many you can tick off with a pencil that applies to you:

* The Bible Roulette Approach: You close your eyes, flip open the Bible randomly, stick your finger on a page, read what the text says, and then take what you have read as a personal "word" from God.

* The Inspirational Approach: You look for verses that inspire you. Upon finding such verses, you either highlight, memorize, meditate upon, or put them on your refrigerator door.

* The Promise-Book Approach: You look for verses that tell you what God has promised so that you can confess it in faith and thereby obligate the Lord to do what you want. (If you are part of the “name-it-claim-it,” “blab-it-grab-it” movement, you are masterful at doing this.)

* The Subservant Approach: You look for verses that tell you what God commands you to do. And then you try to do them.

* The Fight-the-Enemy Approach: You look for verses that you can quote to scare the devil out of his wits or resist him in the hour of temptation.

* The Theological-Sparring Approach: You look for verses that will prove your particular doctrine so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner into Biblical ribbons. (Because of the proof-texting method, a vast wasteland of Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random, de-contextualized verse of Scripture ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.)

* The Rebuker Approach: You look for verses in the Bible to control and/or correct others.

* The Sermonizer Approach: If you are a preacher, you look for verses that “preach” well for your next sermon or Bible study. (This is an on-going addiction for some preachers and teachers. It is so ingrained that many of them are incapable of reading their Bibles in any way other than to hunt for sermon material.)

Now look at this list again. Did you find yourself there?

Notice how each of these approaches is highly individualistic. All of them put you, the individual Christian, at the center. Each approach ignores the fact that most of the NT was written to corporate bodies of people (churches), not to individuals. But that is not all. Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof-texting. They treat the NT like a manual and blind us to its real message. It is no wonder that we can approvingly nod our heads at paid pastors, the Sunday morning order of worship, sermons, church buildings, religious costumes, choirs, worship teams, seminaries, and a passive priesthood – all without wincing. We have been taught to approach the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle. For most of us, we have never been told the entire story that lies behind the letters that Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote. We have been taught chapters and verses, not the historical context.

For instance, have you ever been taught the story behind Paul’s letter to the Galatians? Before you nod your head, see if you can answer these questions off the top of your head: Who were the Galatians? What were their issues? When and why did Paul write to them? What happened just before Paul penned his Galatian treatise? Where was he when he wrote it? What provoked him to write the letter? And where in Acts do you find the historical context for this letter? All of these background matters are indispensable for understanding what our New Testament is about. Without them, we simply cannot understand the Bible clearly or properly.

One scholar put it this way, “The arrangement of the letters of Paul in the New Testament is in general that of their length. When we rearrange them into their chronological order, fitting them as far as possible into their life-setting within the record of the Acts of the Apostles, they begin to yield up more of their treasure; they become self-explanatory, to a greater extent than when this background is ignored.” G.C.D. Howley in “The Letters of Paul,” New International Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), p. 1095.

Another writes, “If future editions [of the New Testament] want to aid rather than hinder a reader’s understanding of the New Testament, it should be realized that the time is ripe to cause both the verse and chapter divisions to disappear from the text and to be put on the margin in as inconspicuous a place as possible. Every effort must be made to print the text in a way which makes it possible for the units which the author himself had in mind to become apparent.” H. von Soden, Die Schriften des Newen Testamentes, p. 482.

I call our method of studying the New Testament the “clipboard approach.” If you are familiar with computers, you are aware of the com-ponent called the clipboard. If you happen to be in a word pro¬cessor, you may cut-and-paste a piece of text via the clipboard. The clipboard allows you to cut a sentence from one document and paste it into another.

Pastors, seminarians, and laymen alike have been conditioned by the clipboard approach when studying the Bible. This is how we justify our human-laden, earth-bound, man-made, encrusted and encased traditions and pass them off as “Biblical.” It is why we routinely miss what the early church was like whenever we open up our New Testaments. We see verses. We do not see the whole picture.

Needed: A New Approach to the New Testament

What is needed is a brand new approach to the New Testament. An approach not based in the New Testament letters as they are arranged in our Bible. But an approach that is based in “the story” … which blends together Acts and the Epistles in chronological order. If every Christian, pastors and Bible teachers included, would obtain a panoramic view of the first-century church in its chronological and socio-historical setting, it would revolutionize the Christian landscape today. The following are four specific ways in which this revolution could take place in your own life.

First, understanding the story of the NT church will give you a whole new understanding of each NT letter – an understanding that is rich, accurate, and exciting. You will be ushered into the living, breathing atmosphere of the first century. You will taste what went on in the writers’ hearts when they penned their letters. The circumstances they addressed will be made plain. The people to whom they wrote will come to life. No longer will you see the Epistles as sterile, complicated reads. Instead, they will turn into living, breathing voices that are part of a living, breathing story. The result? You will grasp the NT like never before! NT scholar F. F. Bruce once made the statement that reading the letters of Paul is like hearing one side of a telephone conversation. This book reconstructs –“the other side.”

Second, understanding the story will help you see “the big picture” that undergirds the events that followed the birth of the church and its subsequent growth. This “big picture” has at its center an unbroken pattern of God’s working. And this pattern reflects God’s ultimate goal – which is to have a community on this earth that expresses His nature in a visible way. This theme of a God-ordained community constitutes a unifying thread that runs throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Therefore, reading this book will not only help you to better understand your NT, it will also give you a fresh look at God’s eternal purpose – that which is closest to His heart.

Third, understanding the story of the NT church will supply you with the proper historical context which will enable you to accurately apply Scripture to your own life. Christians routinely take verses out of context and misapply them to their daily living. Seeing the Scripture in its proper historical context will safeguard you from making this all-too common mistake.

Fourth, understanding the story will forever deliver you from the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study that dominates evangelical thinking today. What is the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study? It is the common practice of coming to the NT with scissors and glue, clipping and then pasting disjointed sentences (verses) together from Books that were written decades apart. This “cut-and-paste” approach has spawned all sorts of spiritual hazards and one of them being the popular practice of lashing verses together to build floatable doctrines. Another is that of “proof-texting” to win theological arguments. (A vast majority of Western Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random and de-contextualized verse ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.) The Medievals called this “cut-and-paste” method “a string-of-pearls”. “You take one text, find some remote metaphorical connection with another text, and voilà, an ironclad doctrine is born! But this is a pathetic approach to understanding the Bible. While it is great for reading one’s own biases into the text, it is horrible for understanding the intent of the biblical authors. It has been rightly said that a person can prove anything by taking Bible verses out of context. Let me demonstrate how one can “biblically” prove that it is God’s will for believers to commit suicide. All you have to do is lift two verses out of their historical setting and paste them together:

“And he [Judas] went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Then said Jesus –‘Go, and do thou likewise’ ” (Luke 10:37 b).

While this is an outrageous example of the “cut-and-paste” approach, it makes a profound point. Without understanding the historical context of the NT, Christians have managed to build doctrines and invent practices that have fragmented the Body of Christ into thousands of denominations. Understanding the sequence of each NT Book and the socio-historical setting that undergirds them is one remedy for this problem.[1] I have stated four reasons why rediscovering the NT story is a worthwhile endeavor. But there is one more reason. There is a very good chance that it will revolutionize your Christian life and your relationship with your Lord!

The Bible is a huge road map leading us to only one destination: The Lord Jesus Christ. If we will understand the Bible properly and gain all that it has to offer (as spiritual food for our journey in Christ), we must first become familiar with the historical context in which it was set. If not, we will be apt to completely misapply its message and miss the main point . . . which is Christ and all that God the Father has done in and through Him.