While I'm on a small roll...
Did you know? You can actually make disciples who make disciples who make disciples that lead to exponentially growing movements of God that transform the world without...
Buildings
Budgets
Programs
Attractional events
I have many examples of that being done WITH the tools above that suck out much of the resources for the Church to be the Church in the world.
Did you know that sometimes the tools we think we need to do the job actually becomes a hindrance to our doing the job. I see that in the American Church.
That can be said of the four things listed above.
posted by Bob Carder @ 11:25 AM
60 comments
60 Comments:
You're slipping again, Bob. Tell us what a disciple making movement looks like. Not what it doesn't look like.
I THOT I DID. IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I DESCRIBED IN THE POST.
What it doesn't look like is hindering the Spirit of God from working in America. Yes I am a reformer for America.
What it doesn't look like is providing a safe haven for professing believers to live in their disobedience to the Greatest Commission of God.
It is a Holy Spirit unleashed movement without walls or structures unhindered by man.
Ignoring the problems won't make them go away...but then again some people really love the stuff I hate.
Can it be though that God can use some of the things you are rejecting here? Of course he doesn't need those things to reach the lost, but there are a lot things he doesn't need yet still uses. I am just saying that in my experience in the church my whole life of 20 plus years, I have seen God use buildings, programs, and events in incredible ways.
I just want to be careful about throwing away a lot of good things that have worked well in the past to the glory of God. I know you probably don't like the word "tradition", but I still think it should be considered in our present situation. We should acknowledge the "democracy of the dead" and let our forebears have a say...afterall they are watching us and cheering us on. just a thought.
Let's follow that logic. By getting rid of my building, budget, program, and attractional events I'm making disciples? In my opinion, just as these things don't make disciples, neither does getting rid of them make disciples.
Granted, sometimes growth can come simply by removing the obstacles to growth. But unless there is genuine effort and faith to see discipleship happen, simply decontructing the church won't do the job.
That's why my belief and experience leads me to focus positively on making disciples. If and when they outgrow the current structures, then so be it and praise the Lord. If others persecute me for making disciples then so be it and praise the Lord.
But my ministry is to make disciples, not tear down churches. After all, Christ said that he'd deal with the Church, but he commands me to make disciples.
saying that the wineskins need to change in order to more effectivly make disciples is not tearing down the church(bride of christ) is it? There are those whom God will choose to work within this wineskin in order to turn his church (the people) back to him. As we make disciples that live like Jesus there will come a point however that the structure will have to make major changes or it will become a hinderance or even fatal to the new disciples (the wine skin will burst and the new wine will run out) Are makers of disciple makers prepared to make the changes that making disciples will require? Some will choose as Bob and I have done to step out of the structure to jump right to the new wineskins. We will struggle at first because of the resistence and the spiritual warefare but the skins will hold the new wine.
I am out of the instiutional church. I am making disciples, reaching people who would not come into an institution. I do not have the hinderances of budget and building nor the stress of spending a majority of my time preparing programs. I have a friend that is trying to start a disciple making movement within an institutional structure. What he is teaching his disciples in terms of priorities, obedience to the spirit and service is in direct conflict with the programing and structure. It is hard for him. But he is still making disciples who make disciples. Some of his disciples will soon see it as hyporcricy. He will have to decide rather to let the wineskin burst or switch to a new wineskin. Is this how it is with Bob and Honest2blog?
All I'm saying is don't put God in a box. Make disciples and let him deal with the Church.
I have no doubt that you're all making disciples and I applaud that. It's just that if I wanted to go and make disciples, this site wouldn't be much of a resource to help me do that. (Saying that in love, Bob!)
If we're going to see polarization between certain camps in the denomination, let it be over making disciples and not over our protests against conventional churches.
Does Romans 14:1-12 have anything to say to this situation?
I guess it all depends on what you are breeding. An elephant or rabbits.
Rabbits describe what I am breeding. An elephant breeds slowly.
I have found that we can have both and God does work in both camps. But He had led me out of the elephant breeding business and into the rabbit breeding business. I know allot about rabbits, we raised them when I was a kid. They quickly multiply brothers and sisters, really fast.
I'm all for using whatever ministry tool available as long as the tool doesn't hinder Holy Spirit empowered disciple making movement.
Right now my denomination is hindering me from doing what God is asking me to do because of geographical restrictions and boundaries. I am called to make disciples and multiply disciple multipliers and spin off Holy Spirit empowered disciple making movements. I'm not just making disciples, I am concerned about the lost across America. The elephants are drinking and eating all the resources for themselves.
To say this blog offer little help to those who want to make disciples is not a fair comment. It's really a cheap shot. You need to read my blog and quit getting defensive when I speak out against the need for larger budgets, better programs, more butts in pews and bigger buildings.
If you need them use them, but remember you really don't need them to make disciples, my point exactly and apparently missed.
Any disciple multiplier can make multiplying disciples without those things we have been taught we need. It's all about relationships with lost people.
Do you have any idea how much an elephant eats and drinks?
Except on thing: you assume that the structured traditional church is doing a poor job at reaching the lost. This assumption has to be taken at a situation by situation basis. Some churches are really dead. Some churches are also really alive. The problem is not that the dead churches are using the "organization" or the "old wineskin," and the alive churches are using newer, less structured methods. To me the method is not the issue. You can have a church that is very much alive using the structures and the programs and the events. Likewise you can have a group of disciple-makers that get together in a house or somewhere with coffee that can be really dead. The method is not the determiner of the spiritual well being of the church. What matters is the hearts of those who gather together in the name of Christ.
Also, please remember that church growth is not to be measured in the number of "rabbits or elephants" that you produce. The quality of your project here Bob cannot be deemed good based on the number of people that pass through your meetings. Quality of believers is far better than the quantity. So perhaps it could be that a few strong "elephants" for Jesus could be better for the Kingdom than a hundred little "rabbits." You should work harder at not trying to see how many rabbits you can breed, but how you can, with God's help, transform those rabbits into strong quality elephants. Your model of "exponential growth" is flawed in that it is based on numerical values. We should strive more deeply at generating quality Christians who can change their world.
So again, its not the method. Work at quality not quantity. When necessary, adapt your method to the type of people you want to see God reach, but do it without compromising the Truth.
And Brian McLaren, Don Miller, and even Rob Bell are not very good models of the Christian faith :)
I believe Bob's reference to rabbits and elephants was structures not converts--wasn't it?
quality and quantity are equally important according to Matt. 28:19-20. Jesus lamented over the quality of the pharisees faith but also over the lost crowds. We must be working at both.
What makes a church alive?
Morning, Bob. I don't mean to offend, but I confess trying to 'mimic' your tone of voice sometimes. I don't normally write that way.
I'm not sure what the rabbits/elephants analogy has to do with this discussion. I don't think anyone has advocated that the big church model is more effective at producing disciples. I'm definitely a rabbit breading disciple maker!
I'm not defending the need for bigger budgets, etc. I'm just saying that as one who is actively involved in discipling, training disciple-makers, and providing leadership for disciple-making movements I think it's counter-productive to dedicate such a large piece of the pie to deconstructing local churches.
As for the blog, if I were seeking to learn how to multiply disciples, what information would I get here to help me with that? I'd sense that you think I should leave my local church and that I'm going to face a lot of opposition for this, but what specifically would I start doing?
I think the Keystone philosophy has started a powerful and important conversation in the church, but we're not quite there yet. We need the humility to continue to seek God and learn from one another.
Pride and division will bring this thing crashing down faster than we can imagine.
Let's continue to spur one another on to love and good deeds.
Would it be correct to say that you identify the primary problem in the church today as our structure whereas I identify the primary problem as a lack of discipleship? Is this our fundamental difference?
Seeking some clarity ...
The primary problem in the church today is sin. Always has been. Without it the church is spotless.
Problem in the American church is that sin is tolerated many times so we can have bigger attendance, buildings, larger budgets, etc... I think some of the posts on this blog point that out from real life examples.
I have been in an evangelical church plant where an elder stated that Mormons were Christians. This person was an elder because he was also the dean of a Christian college. When I challenged him and brought the issue to the pastor - I was soon the one out. This is only one example of the level of compromise that permeates the American church every day. I worked in a church of over 3000 where the common test for ministry decisions was how people would react. Controversy was seen as the enemy not Satan or sin.
When I read this blog I see the stand against the structure as those things that fuel the compromise. If you look at the "you asked for it" post above, in my limited experience of having attended at least 50 churches in 10 states from at least 8 denominations, I have not yet seen what was described there.
So let's not forget who the real enemy is here. It is satan and sin. Anything that compells us to compromise the truth should be done away with.
Does owning a large building cause you to compromise with a corrput local government in order to exist? Does your building put you in conflict with those you are trying to reach. I know of several examples where churches are in lawsuits with their neighbors due to zoning or use issues. Should they be in court with them?
Does having a large budget cause you to compromise when sin is identified in the life of your largest donor?
Does the desire for a larger crowd cause you to compromise and let the enemies of God join in your worship service or eucharist/communion?
Will someone here compromise absolute truth and defend the act of compromising for the greater good?
Now we are discussing the real issue...
anonymous, you say on the one hand that the problem is sin, but then on the other that it's the budgets and buildings that cause us to compromise. So which is it? I'm just trying to get us to be consistent.
Having a building may make it harder to make the right decision, but the problem is still the human heart and not the building. Getting rid of the building will not necessarily change the heart. That's why I pointed us to Romans 14 above. If we need to get rid of buildings to purify the heart, then that's legalism at worst and weak faith at best.
But let me be clear again: I'm not defending buildings or budgets. The church I pastor doesn't have it's own building and we definitely don't have a large budget. We are a disciple-driven community. But I think that the church bashing actually takes away from disciple-making. I have full confidence that Jesus will take care of his church if we obey his command to make disciples.
Great conversation, I want more and more and more of it.
I was talking about structures that limit. The elephant is eating all the resources and still not making disciples at the rate it eats.
Feel free to mimic my tone, someone needs to shake things up around here.
Anony, you make a great point. It is disobedience that causes us to leave disciple making for other things we deem more important. I love your comments here. Also, what I wrote about above is happening in the Disciple Driven Church movement. I pastored for 25 years and never saw what I now see and experience. It is hard to imagine though if you have not yet seen these things.
Martilous, a focus on structures does limit our disciple-making because structures equal control. You are right and I am with you, we are not making disciples the way Jesus instructed us to, thus we are sinning if we do not obey.
Phil, I also experienced what you describe in the American Church. It's just that we are not going to reach your generation and those younger in these structures. They care very little (in general) about Budgets, Better Programs, Bigger Buildings and more Butts in pews. They are leaving this old wine skin approach in search of Jesus. We need to be sure for the sake of the American Church future and for the sake of lost souls that we address this issue. A new wine skin is needed to recapture their hearts.
Let's look at a couple of things.
1. A barna study says that 75% of the members of the biggest Evangelical denominations in the country, when asked how they know they are going to heaven, do not answer with a biblical answer. 3/4ths of the country who are members of evangelical churches are going to hell. Wow. Think about that. The lost are in the church. The "Church" are made of the lost!!!!!! Is that what Christ intended? We are commanded to fellowship with fellow believers. If 75% in your church is for sure going to hell and can not even effectively fake Christianity, then probably 15% has learned the right words. Would it surprise anyone if 90% or more of people in churches, claiming to be a christian are going to hell and in fact do not know Christ? How is that a church anymore? You are probably no more likely to find a true Christian in church Sunday morning than you are to find one in Walmart Monday afternoon.
If you are disciplining others praise God. You of course are under the same authority you are calling others to though right? You are under discipleship as well right? And you are calling your disciples to make disciples who they will lead right? How many generations have you seen?
I agree, there is nothing wrong in an of itself with buildings, programs and the like. But, what is the purpose of buildings, where did they come from, and why do we use them? Church buildings like most current church practices came after Constantine to mimic pagans and their pagan practices. If today I incorporated a new pagan practice in the church it would not fly, but since there are a ton of them we have been doing for 1,700 years, it is cool. Church buildings are used today most often to
1. Contain
2. Separate
3. Protect
The lost are called into a church rather than to Christ. Then when the church gets 500-600 lost people with maybe 50-100 Christians it may be time to expand to a bigger building.
How many people in your "church" are making disciples? How many have baptized someone? How many know they are supposed to?
Programs are meant to be a slave of man, instead, man can become enslaved to them. If you have programs BECAUSE you have a need that needs to be met, and that need is Biblical and the program deals with it in a biblical way, GREAT!! If you have a program you make BEFORE there is even a need, not great. You are then a slave to the program.
Churches have never been used to "win the lost" They are ineffective tools. Has anyone even been saved as a result of a building? I doubt it. Even if they have, Christ was already calling them and would have used the body of Christ if the Body of Christ wasn't sick and near death.
People need to recognize how sick the church is. We are performing ancient pagan practices because we did them for 50-1,700 years and everyone is fine with it. At least 75% of our "churches" do not know Christ. "Churches" are not teaching people to make disciples as church bodies. They are not teaching people to baptize. They are not teaching people to teach others all Christ commanded them. A large number do not even teach on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit or spiritual gifts because it scares them. We are indeed far from where Christ started us off. Will we continue doing what we always done, or will we revert to the way Christ intended things?
I believe also that in order for Keystone to flourish it must be lived out in radical Christianity. Otherwise it just gets blended into a broken system. We've training far too many do nothing with it trainees.
This movement calls for a whatever it takes attitude in order to be obedient to the whatever it takes Great Commission. I tried your approach honest2blog and it will never bring radical reformation or reforming in America.
It must be a break out movement for it to survive. Isn't that just like the Holy Spirit who is much larger than our structures that attempt to limit God?
I can't add much to that excellent post, Eric. You nailed it.
Rick - use some spiritual discernment here.
"anonymous, you say on the one hand that the problem is sin, but then on the other that it's the budgets and buildings that cause us to compromise. So which is it? I'm just trying to get us to be consistent."
There is no dichotomy here so don't make up a false one. Your attempt is no more at consitency as I am flying to the moon. Face it - my point was clearly that sin infests the church and compormise in these examples is clearly sin. There is usually some temptation that peaople fall to when they sin. I just listed relevant examples in the church.
Read what I said and chew on it. It is as consistent as the rising sun. Maybe you are not familiar enough with our culture to be sticking your nose this far in it.
I think the best medicine for the American church is to make the attendees aware of what their leaders do.
I love it when people try to call pointing out the problem "church bashing" as much as I love turnips, which I cannot stand.
Wake up friends, we are speaking against tools that hinder the work of God. Because the tool is first and the mission is second, usually.
Let's identify the problems and face them head on.
Right on Anony! Run brother run!
Or is anony a sister, who knows?
honest2blog- when i look at the 4 things Bob referenced in his original post: buildings, budgets, atractional events, and programs, my overarching thought is money. money is required to do all these things. and as Jesus said, you cant serve God and Mammon (money). if, as Eric stated, the programs and events and costs have risen in supremacy over the will of God (and dont be shocked, in many instances they have), that body of beleivers are no longer serving God, but money and are in sin, serving the wrong master.
And as Eric said (thank you,by the way) buildings are meant to conatain, separate and protect. Limiting church to a building completely defeats the purpose of the Bride. and by 'limiting church' i dont care what people are professing what they think church is, and ultimately, i dont care about the small core of fifty people in the church who may very well be doing what theyre supposed to be doing. im talking about the countless hundreds to thousands of goats who on judgement day will be horrified to discover their goatness since they 'went to church' like they are supposed to. but back to my original point.
The Church (big C this time) was not meant to be separated. it was in the world, but not of it. It was not meant to be contained. the command has always been "Go". and finally, the Church was not meant to be protected by anything or anyone other than God himself. actually, we are supposed to be suffering persecution like Jesus did, torture and all. does anyone else find it strange that this thing He PROMISED us would happen to His children ISNT happening to 90% of Americans who PROFESS to be His?
Relax guys and girls. We're talking past each other and apparently not reading each other very carefully.
I seriously doubt you tried what I'm doing, Bob. But tell me what you did and I'll let you know if it's the same.
I'm an American, anon.
Discipleship and the Keystone principles transcend culture, right?
I'm not defending big-church, buildings, or budgets (don't know how many times I need to say this). Just asking you to do what I've done - go out and make disciples in the power of the Spirit and see what happens.
Bob, you wrote: "we are speaking against tools that hinder the work of God"...I ask you: "if the mission were first would you be in favor of the buildings, budgets, programs, events? I think that it is extremely generalized to say that we are not putting God first in these types of things. Likewise I think that it is very generalized to say that God cannot reach my generation through the traditional methods. I think here YOU put limits on God...YOU put God in a box by rejecting opportunities in the traditional church that God can and does use (and uses quite frequently I might add).
WIll you at least recognize that God can use the church structure like the one that I attend? I am recognizing that He potentially works in your method, provided you keep a strong commitment to doctrinal truth and the Word of God. But I will not make the statement that He is not working in the traditional church....because HE IS! So can you at least admit that God can save this generation by utilizing the structures, organizations, events etc if He so chooses??
To Eric: again with the Constantine jazz!! We see from church history that buildings were beginning to spring up in the 200s AD...BEFORE Constantine. Also, these buildings/structures were NOT adapted from pagan styles of worship. They were more adapted from the Jewish synagogues. In fact Christians met in the synagogues and Temple for a long time well before the time of Constantine. History is what it is. Please don't throw revisionist junk on me.
It seems I am alone here. From what I see, you guys love Jesus, but hate the church. How can this be? If I told my friend that I liked him but hated his wife, isn't that the same as hating my friend? The church is the Bride. Hating her is the same as hating Christ. And don't you dare say that the church in its current traditional form is not being the Bride. From the time of Pentecost to the time of Constantine to the present day, the Church has been the Bride of Christ. And she has done a very good job at it. I realize the new thing is to criticize it and call its work evil. But I just cannot bring myself to say that. I just do not believe it is true.
I am not reading the same books as you guys. I don't read McLaren. I don't read Don Miller. I don't read Rob Bell. I don't read emergent stuff. I read Orthodoxy. I read Lewis. I read Zacharias. I read JP Moreland. I read Aquinas. I read Augustine. I read the Bible in context and as a whole, via an inductive method of study. So I guess we are just in different camps and will just continue to disagree. Please let me know if I am wrong, but I think the majority of believers from all through the history of the church are with me here. I have a big issue with the heresies of the emergent church. From what I have seen so far, your model fits right into the emergent model. Correct me if I am wrong. I would like to come out there and see firsthand your ministry. But seeing as how that is unlikely to happen, could you perhaps make your position a little more clear. I understand your "disciple thing", but can you tell me what your meetings are like, what you talk about, where you go to for authority, etc. I would appreciate it!
phil-
to which 'heresies' are you referring? Heresy is a very serious charge and I, alongside Bob, dont teach ANYTHING counter to the Scripture. If you want to call us heretics, that's your perrogative, but at least provide some evidence to it. what is heretical here?
I'm not quite calling you heretics yet. If you can make clear to me that you are not emergent, I will recall my statements about heresy. If you show me that you are emergents (ie. follow the teachings of Brian McLaren as found in his writings, or the Blue Like Jazz/Searching for God Knows What books of Donald Miller, or the extreme deconstruction/over spiritualizing of the Scriptures by Rob Bell)...if you end up showing me that you look up to those guys and follow their teachings, then in my book you are practicing heresy. And if Bob would like to open up a new thread for posting about the emergent church, I would be happy to explain my position in more detail.
Your a heretic until you convince Phil you are not. Can you say Inquisition?
Phil ...
You're not alone in some of your thoughts here. As you know, we had the Constantine debate a while back. People need to stop getting their history from George Barna and go back to the original sources. Even if all the deconstructionists were accurate in their assessment of history, it wouldn't really matter. So many biblical stories talk about God redeeming pagan practices for his purposes.
Though there is some overlap in Emerging Church movement and the discipleship paradigm presented here, being familiar with this group (and really being a part of it myself), I don't think they'd really fall into the Emerging camp. Two differences are that the Emerging Church movement (especially in Europe) often embraces traditional - especially ancient - Christian spirituality. The Emerging Church also tends to be more theologically liberal whereas the discipleship movement is very conservative.
One of the things that concerns me over the discipleship movement as presented here is that it comes across as just another strategy to save the church. Discipleship is justified using the language of growth, numbers, culture, etc. We need to do it because attendance is dropping at the local church down the street.
Discipleship is not a strategy. It's about obedience,faithfulness, and growing in spiritual maturity. It's about believing Jesus, believing like Jesus, and believing what Jesus believed (Augsburger). Though it's hard for some to see because they're so deeply engrained in the culture of modernity, when discipleship becomes a strategy justified in terms of wild growth, it is nothing more than the child of the seeker sensitive movement.
Finally (whew!), there are many different streams leaving the conventional churches today. One stream is the 'nonchurch' movement represented here. Another is the return to the historic churches. As you know, you'll find twenty somethings in both camps. I have friends who left conventional churches to become Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic. And there are other streams as well. The 'nonchurch' people like to think they're the only ones offering something to young people, but it's not true.
You're right Phil, that God is bigger than any one of us. May each of us have the humility to recognize that and praise him for his works of grace in the most surprising places!
Just to clarify the above post, I identify with the Keystone discipleship movement and not the Emerging Church movement. :-)
FWIW, maybe someday I'll share the story, but I have been literally kicked out of conventional church structures along with those I've discipled for discipling. Following Jesus was too much for the church structure I was in, and all of us were asked to leave. In fact, a commitment to the Great Commission has cost me much more than even that. I only say that in order to let you know that I understand the cost of discipleship and I understand how local churches can respond. Because I've been there, I don't want to engage in power struggles for control of the future of the church. That is destructive. We make discipes, remain committed to Christ, and trust him enough to obey when it costs us everything we have - even our freedom, finances, and families.
'Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.'
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil, you are historically wrong. People adapted their own houses for the use of the church, but the church owned nothing and individuals lived in what you would call church buildings. There is a church that meets in my house, does that mean I live in a church?
You can say what you want about how and why they sprang up. It appears your history isn't fully correct. We know for sure that the pastor position came from paganism. We know for sure that pews came from "box seats" for the church that the rich paid for. The pastor's chair came for paganism. In Jewish Synagogues at the time, anyone was allowed to speak at any time. That is why Jesus spoke in the synagogues and why the apostles at the time could preach there. Is your church that way? If I walk in off the street, can I have the mic? Didn't think so. Claim what you want, churches were never based off the synagogues.
So Phil, actually answer this question. Is ANY PAGANISM acceptable in the church?
Who is really revising history here? Just because a metal worker knocks a wall out in his house, does that make his house a church? Show me one structure owned by the church prior to 300 AD. Before that Christianity was illegal so that was impossible. How could there have been buildings again? Maybe there is some confusion here. Perhaps we can both start citing sources. Since you are saying something existed you have the burden of proof for that. I would be happy to produce proof for any of the pagan practices I am referring to.
Finally, I do not hate the church. I hate the illness. I hate that people call those structures the church. I hate that people are claiming you can come to Christ without cost. I hate that our modern church is blind and deaf and poor and naked and it does not know it. I hate that we are lumping 90% unbelievers in with 10% believers and calling that a church. The bride of Christ is not the unbelievers which so make up our "churches" and the bride of Christ should not remain in bondage like it has.
I take the Bible completely in context and look at the Bible inductively as well. Read the book of Acts. How much of that do you see happening in your Church? Why not?
We are not emergent. The emergent church is messed up in the exact same way the "traditional church" is messed up.
The way we meet does not matter. We sing praises to God, worship by giving, someone usually has a message from God, someone usually has a scripture or something God laid on their heart. Everyone works in their giftings and obeys God as to what He commanded them to do. People who are gifted in leadership lead. Everyone is under authority to another, no one is above it. We are truly returning to what the Church originally was and what Christ commanded it to be. What specifically are your questions?
honest2blog: Which "original sources" are you referring to? I have not found any such material that was not written from the Cathloic perspective that tries to honestly portray history as it was, that says what you are saying. I would like to read what you are reading there.
Plus, which bible story are you talking about? Which pagan practice did God redeem and tell His people to start practicing?
I'm confused by this 90%/10% thing. Who is it again who's going to come into my church and say "you, you, you, and you -- out! You're not real believers."
I know Christ will do this, similarly, in the end, but until then ... unbelievers and believers have to worship together, if the unbelievers choose to show up, right?
Clarify?
Ok, thanks for clarifying the emergent aspect. But you reject the position of pastoral leadership? Anyone with a Scripture (which could include a faulty interpretation) could speak? Who is there to safeguard against false "revelations" from God? So if I said I had a message from God and truly beleived he wanted me to share it, I could stand up in your meetings and speak? Your authority is to each other, not from Christ or his Word? You ignore the two millenia of church history and tradition in the name of "getting back to the root?" I am sorry, but I cannot see how this is getting back to the church of Acts. You must think pretty highly of yourselves to say that after two thousand years of church, you finally have it! You must be pretty arrogant to say that two thousand years of the church were wrong, that most of the people in the church are going to hell, that you can interpret the Bible without the use of tradition, reason, and experience. You cannot rely on experience alone...you need all three together and in that order.
I am sorry if you have been hurt by the structured church. But it is no reason to leave it altogether. We have a lot of good to offer. And we do offer that.
Thank you for your comments Honest2blog. I realize now that they are not emergent (but pretty close). So they may not be committing heresy against dogma and doctrine, but only against tradition and structure. I just bought a new book "They like Jesus, but not the Church: insights from emerging generations" by Dan kimball. Perhaps this will give more insight into the way these guys think and the way my generation as a whole might think.
No one Michael. However, if they say they are saved through any other way other than Christ, then we can pretty well tell. If they are claiming they will go to heaven because they are good, we can pretty well tell. If they say that Christ has sinned, we can pretty well tell. If they say they do not believe in hell, we can pretty well tell. If they have no fruit, we can pretty well tell. If they are living a life of sin and we have never seen them seeking Christ, we can pretty well tell.
You are living for Christ or you are not. Christ's sheep WILL follow Him and WILL hear His voice. Can anyone judge those people? They can sure judge themselves.
We just don't invite unbelievers to gather with the church in worship. If they show up we love them.
Our disciples are taught to lead the unbeliever to Jesus before leading them into the Church. Unbelievers and believers do not have to unequally yoked in worship. If it happens it happens but let's not invite them to gather.
We are NOT A PART OF THE NON CHURCH CULTURE. We are just the Church a people and not a location. We have the world messed up with the church being a location. You cannot hold the church we are like a sneeze in the wind. We are scattered if you know what I mean.
Phil, I am not against the Church. I am against things that take priority over making disciples who make disciples.
I was also kicked to the curb by the godly of the most godly in the structured church. It was the structures that allowed the sin and did not address it. So I hate safe havens for sin.
All it takes for the mission of Jesus to be thwarted is for a few good men to do nothing.
All over the world there are those who are seriously looking into redeeming the younger generations. I'm in that camp. We are not the only ones -but I am proud to be among them.
We are not emergent here. While I have read those you call heretics and their writings I do not agree entirely nor do I disagree entirely. They have something to offer in this ever changing church culture.
H2B said, Discipleship is not a strategy. It's about obedience,faithfulness, and growing in spiritual maturity. It's about believing Jesus, believing like Jesus, and believing what Jesus believed (Augsburger).
The Planter: I would add that it is all about "setting the captives free". Our focus is not at all about wild growth, instead it is all about setting one captive free at a time.
I used to admire Constantine until I realized that the underground out of control work of the Spirit through disciple making came to a halt under his good deeds. Now I see his effort to make Christianity the official state religion work as casing great harm to the movement and spread of authentic Christianity.
To Phil, I addressed some of your questions. But remember our goal is not to "go to gather" but rather to "gather in order to go". Our gathering is important but obedience is lived out in our going. When we gather we have communion, share songs together, we read from the word, we pray and pray over one another, all the Eph 4 gifts are in play and every other gift is welcome. All who want to contribute do so. We have no designated order and sometimes no sermon, but the word is always taught or shared. All the children and youth are present with their families, we share a meal together some of the time. It's a wonderful time of declaring the Glory of God.
""""Who is there to safeguard against false "revelations" from God?""""
Lol, everyone with discernment. If anyone does that, we would all know. Revelations almost always come, if not always come, with confirmation from others.
There is a pastoral gifting of course. It is no better or worse than any other gifting.
""""So if I said I had a message from God and truly beleived he wanted me to share it, I could stand up in your meetings and speak?""""
Absolutely.
"""Your authority is to each other, not from Christ or his Word?"""
Of course we have authority in Christ and the Word. That is the ultimate authority. I did not think that needed to be mentioned because we would not be Christians if we did not believe that.
""""You ignore the two millenia of church history and tradition in the name of "getting back to the root?"""""
I ignore 1,700 years of tradition in light of what Christ actually said to do.
""""You must think pretty highly of yourselves to say that after two thousand years of church, you finally have it"""""
Christ gave it 2,000 years ago and everyone did it for 300 years and ignored it after that. You must think highly of yourself to think that just becasue you always did it it is the right thing.
""""that most of the people in the church are going to hell,""""
look at the surveys. I don't know about your, but my parents church they did a survey and 60% did not believe in hell. That was a Southern Baptist Church and the biggest one in DeSoto!
""""that you can interpret the Bible without the use of tradition""""
You interpret based on reason???!!! That is what the pharisees did! The Bible is a spiritual book and can only be understood with the Spirit of God.
""""I am sorry if you have been hurt by the structured church. But it is no reason to leave it altogether. We have a lot of good to offer. And we do offer that.""""
This is not about ME or what YOU have to offer. It is about listening to Christ and what he commanded. I am not going to church to GET anything out of it, I am going to ACT!!!!!
""""So they may not be committing heresy against dogma and doctrine, but only against tradition and structure.""""
WoW!!!!!! Like Jesus did huh? That is what the leaders of the time claimed for Him!!!!
Eric,
Eusebius writing in 303: 'Imperial edicts were published everywhere ordering that the churches be razed to the ground.' Hard to raze churches that didn't exists.
From Constantine's infamous Edict of Milan, 313: 'Moreover, concerning the Christians, we before gave orders with respect to the places set apart for their worship. It is now our pleasure that all who have bought such places should restore them to the Christians, without any demand for payment ...' Hard to restore what didn't exist.
Church buildings were not wide spread, but rooms dedicated solely for Christian worship go back to the first century. These rooms were structured for Christian worship alone.
Doesn't get any more original than that! :-)
You can see a debate over this at: http://honest2blog.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/urban-legends-of-church-history/
One example of something pagan that God redeemed were many of the Jewish festivals which existed as agricultural festivals in many of the surrounding cultures. God gave the festivals new meaning through the historical events that took place in Israel.
Off to do some deconstrution at the Bulgarian house church that began through discipleship outside the church structures. They think that only a pastor can lead them. I'm challenging them tonight that over the next six months we can disciple and equip some of them to take over leadership. It's outside their box right now, though.
Pray for me.
Constantini - brought into play those darn hierarchical structures, didn't he? At least he gave them a good fueling for sure.
Eric is right that much of those festivals and forward traditions are derived from cultic practices dating back to the days of the early church and her Greek influence.
Phil would you leave the structure in order to reach the lost that reject the structure? I had to. I tried to work within the structure but they would not could not accept the ones we were discipling and our disciples felt like fish out of water in this particular structure.
A side note: Honest2blog: are you related to Tom and Lori Dugan in Ft. wayne?
"""Eusebius writing in 303: 'Imperial edicts were published everywhere ordering that the churches be razed to the ground.' Hard to raze churches that didn't exists.""""
I believe that means from the underground. In that time, "church" refered most often to a group of people, not a building. I don't believe they had a name for the meeting buildings at that time.
""""From Constantine's infamous Edict of Milan, 313: 'Moreover, concerning the Christians, we before gave orders with respect to the places set apart for their worship. It is now our pleasure that all who have bought such places should restore them to the Christians, without any demand for payment ...' Hard to restore what didn't exist.
""""""
The most common place of worship that time, was the graveyards. Constantine built churches on top of them for the people to meet in. They often meet in graveyards as a sybol of respect for the many Christians that died before them. That in itself came to be around 200 AD I think as a slight perversion that managed to creep into the church without a national religion.
"""Church buildings were not wide spread, but rooms dedicated solely for Christian worship go back to the first century. """"
How can we know solely? Besides how can we say those are churches? If I use my basement just for Church, that doesn't make it a church. It is still mine.
"""One example of something pagan that God redeemed were many of the Jewish festivals which existed as agricultural festivals in many of the surrounding cultures. """
I couldn't disagree more. Just because they occured around the same time does not mean that they were the same traditions. God may have given meaning to those times of the year, but he was not approving of the foreign practices at the time. If I said, "Okay everyone today we are going to practice an old indian religious tradition that was used to worship ______. The church would be furious.
I will check out the web site as soon as I have time. Thanks!
Thank you making your position and ministry more clear for me Bob. I apologize for calling what you are doing heretical (if I in fact did do that, or implied it). Hope you can accept my apology.
I am beginning to get a better picture of what you guys are actually doing. And it is great that lives are being changed and folks are being discipled and welcomed into the church. We are also doing that at my church.
We just happen to be working within the structures of the traditional church. We do not see these structures as hinderances, but rather as enhancers of this ministry. Sunday school and youth group and young adults group are all doing an excellent job at helping us to grow together in Christ. The songs we sing and the sermons we hear are directing to Christ. Our church sees new visitors every week and what is more is that they are staying! We befriend new people and lead them to Christ, get them involved in the church, disciple them in classes and Bible studies. I have seen the structures work for God's glory! That is where I am coming from.
I realize that you have been burned by these structures. And that is an unfortunate blip on the church. I am sorry that some people have used the structures for their own gain in your situation. However, please do not judge the whole based on a few in the minority. The church is a good thing. It has worked throughout history. And it is working now. Pagan structures or not, God is using them nonetheless. God can use things like that (remember how he used Pilate, a pagan to accomplish his will, as well as with many other examples). I happen to not see these as pagan, but if you do, you can still acknowlege that God can use them.
We are really in two different cultures I guess. My church is working in the best way it knows how to fulfill the Great Commission. Yours is doing the same. We are all trying to reach the lost. We are just going about it in different ways.
To eric (again): Can 1700 or so years really be that far off the mark? I do not see the real church dying with Constantine. I see it reaching out to the barbarians after the fall of Rome. Then it stood strong and magnificent in the Middle Ages (what a time of tremendous growth and maturing of the creeds/doctines/theology!! Can you say Scholasticism? Awesome). And let us not forget the Protestant Reformation, the spread of Christianity to America, the Great Awakenings, the abolition of slavery, the vote for women, the crusades of Billy Graham, the pro-life movement, and all throughout the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ...all to his glory! Could they really have gotten this church thing wrong? This was done in structured buildings, with programs, revivals, and with the help of money. hmmmm.
And now to your comments about using my reason in interpreting Scripture...you mean you don't use reason in study of the Bible? Wow. Have you heard of John Wesley's Quadrilateral? It goes like this: First you take Scripture, you read it for what it says, not inserting meaning into the text, but extracting the meaning from it. Next you evaluate what you are gathering from your reading against the traditions of the Church. You ask What is the generally accepted view of this passage according to Chruch history? What did the early scholars say about this? What does the church community say now? What is the "orthodox" stance on this passage. The third step is to use your reason to look at Scripture. You ask things like Does this make sense? Is this logical? Does this contradict anything else in Scripture? Is it reasonable to believe this in a coherent fashion? etc. The final step is to evaluate Scripture with your experience. Does this match where I am coming from? Are there parallels here with my life? How does my background relate to what is being said here?
You have to use all of them when looking into the Christian faith. So yese, I do use reason when I read the Bible. I hope you do too.
Great coversation with all of you!! It's been fun!!
Just to keep things clear.
""""I apologize for calling what you are doing heretical (if I in fact did do that, or implied it)""""
""""So they may not be committing heresy against dogma and doctrine, but only against tradition and structure."""""
I have no problem with any heresy against tradition and structure I may commit. Jesus did the same thing.
Mark 7:13
"""Sunday school and youth group and young adults group are all doing an excellent job at helping us to grow together in Christ. """"
How so? What percent of your Church would you say is living in complete freedom? How many have given all to Christ? How many would go anywhere Christ calls them? That is Christ's standard, it must be ours too.
""""Our church sees new visitors every week and what is more is that they are staying!""""
What difference does that make? We were never commanded to do that. We are to lead people to complete freedom and teach them to follow Christ and the great commission. We are never commanded to draw people in.
""""We befriend new people and lead them to Christ, get them involved in the church, disciple them in classes and Bible studies.""""
That is not what Christ commanded. He commanded you to make disciples and teach others to do the same. They should be out there making disciples and whoever lead them to Christ should be teaching them that. Discipleship is not a class. Discipleship has a cost.
""""However, please do not judge the whole based on a few in the minority.""""
This is not a minority. Your comment earlier proved it. You stated the exact same things the leaders in the time of Jesus said against Him. You said we could be committing heresy against the structure!!!! Heresy against the structure!!! I thought God's law is what heresy is committed against, not structure imposed by man! What would you have done in the time of Martin Luther? Or in the time of Christ?
""""Can 1700 or so years really be that far off the mark? """"
The sky is red. You can not disagree I said it first. Yes, yes it can be that far off the mark. Could Israel be that far off the mark right now? Israel is like 4,000 years old (minus a hiatus) and they are rejecting their Savior for the most part right now. How can you even believe what you just asked? Does age add validity in your eyes?
I am not even going to touch on half your history. The church did NOT do things in the way Christ commanded, and it was shown with blood and repression throughout history. Lets jump here....
""""And let us not forget the Protestant Reformation, the spread of Christianity to America""""
The protestant reformation had to happen BECAUSE of the changes that occurred in the church! Because it was so screwed up! Martin Luther though, did not change anything except the beliefs. He did not change the practices. Do you know who protestant churches meet at around 9-10 AM mostly? Martin Luther started that. He would be out drinking on Saturday and not want to get up early on Sunday for the sermons. No, the church never disappeared. That is because God still loves His bride, even if she is sick and dying. Now, it is worse than ever though.
""""the abolition of slavery, the vote for women, the crusades of Billy Graham, the pro-life movement""""
Are you kidding? Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery in the US. It was a political maneuver of the North that happened to be the right thing to do.
The vote of women? How was that influenced directly by Christianity?
The Billy Graham crusades? Going place to place offering limited follow up with the people who just came forward may have done more harm than good- only God knows. But either way, there was little to no disciplining there or commanding those people to follow the great commission.
"""""Could they really have gotten this church thing wrong? This was done in structured buildings, with programs, revivals, and with the help of money. hmmmm.""""
Okay I give up. How was slavery abolished with a building? You can make these pointless statements all you want it doesn't make them true. And YES that does not mean they got it right. You apparently believe that truth is a direct result of outcome. Tell me, do the ends justify the means? I thought the emergent church guys believed that. That my friend is heresy.
"""you mean you don't use reason in study of the Bible?""""
I used the wrong word. You said you use tradition to interpret the scripture. That is what I meant to say. However, no, scripture can not be reasoned out. It has to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. I am surprised you didn't know that.
""""Have you heard of John Wesley's Quadrilateral? It goes like this: First you take Scripture, you read it for what it says, not inserting meaning into the text, but extracting the meaning from it. Next you evaluate what you are gathering from your reading against the traditions of the Church. You ask What is the generally accepted view of this passage according to Chruch history? What did the early scholars say about this? What does the church community say now? What is the "orthodox" stance on this passage. The third step is to use your reason to look at Scripture. You ask things like Does this make sense? Is this logical? Does this contradict anything else in Scripture? Is it reasonable to believe this in a coherent fashion? etc. The final step is to evaluate Scripture with your experience. Does this match where I am coming from? Are there parallels here with my life? How does my background relate to what is being said here?""""""
Okay lets look at this. Is God revealing scripture to you with this method or are you trying to understand it out of your flesh? Tradition should no where come into play. If Martin Luther did that, you would be catholic.
It is scary that you actually believe this way. You believe the same way the leaders did who killed Christ. I hope you don't end up making a similar mistake to them.
In response to various points above ...
There's no such thing as ministry without structure. As soon as you set a meeting time, a meeting place, and someone to lead the meeting you have structure.
Tom's my brother.
You can't 'raze' a group of people to the ground. Only a building. I'm not disputing that much changed with the Edict of Milan. I just don't think it's really all that important. Let's just get on with the work of making disciples.
I've seen the rooms dedicated to Christian worship with my own eyes. I've lived in the Middle East and Southern Europe for 16 years and studied at Jerusalem College University.
There was hierarchy in the New Testament church. Problem isn't hierarchy, the problem is when people use their positions to feed themselves rather than those they should be serving and when those in leadership quit making disciples. Getting rid of the hierarchy doesn't automatically solve the problem.
Many of the Israelite feasts were based on the agricultural cycle, which had feasts celebrated on those days for generations before Israel was a nation. Why is it such a problem if God redeems such things? If you've been through Keystone, then you know that some of the teaching there is how God redeems local customs. This is both biblical and missiological. Nothing controversial here.
As much fun as this has been, I think I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation for a while. Let's all keep the focus on obedience to the Great Commission and let God be God.
Blessings to you all!
""""here's no such thing as ministry without structure. As soon as you set a meeting time, a meeting place, and someone to lead the meeting you have structure.
""""
I agree completely, there is nothing wrong with structure either.
"""You can't 'raze' a group of people to the ground. Only a building. I'm not disputing that much changed with the Edict of Milan. I just don't think it's really all that important. Let's just get on with the work of making disciples."""""
I could be reading it wrong. It is possible, but it seems different than a few other texts. I agree it doesn't make a difference.
"""I've seen the rooms dedicated to Christian worship with my own eyes. I've lived in the Middle East and Southern Europe for 16 years and studied at Jerusalem College University.""""
I am just saying what makes them churches? Just because they are used for worship? Once again, doesn't really matter though.
"""There was hierarchy in the New Testament church. Problem isn't hierarchy, the problem is when people use their positions to feed themselves rather than those they should be serving and when those in leadership quit making disciples. Getting rid of the hierarchy doesn't automatically solve the problem."""""
I think we have far from gotten rid of any hierarchy, just the restraining aspect. Everyone is under authority in discipleship. Everyone is in authority under elders. Everyone is in authority under leaders as their individual expressions. That is more authority than the traditional church even I would say.
""""Many of the Israelite feasts were based on the agricultural cycle, which had feasts celebrated on those days for generations before Israel was a nation. Why is it such a problem if God redeems such things? If you've been through Keystone, then you know that some of the teaching there is how God redeems local customs. This is both biblical and missiological. Nothing controversial here."""""
There is no problem. However, just because the feast were based on the cycle and the pagans ones were as well, doesn't mean that the Jewish ones were based off the pagan ones. God doesn't command his people to commit pagan practices. He does use redeeming qualities in cultures though to show Himself.
"""As much fun as this has been, I think I'm going to have to bow out of the conversation for a while. Let's all keep the focus on obedience to the Great Commission and let God be God."""""
Agreed! See you later.
H2B don't leave now we need your help here.
Martilou said: I have a friend that is trying to start a disciple making movement within an institutional structure. What he is teaching his disciples in terms of priorities, obedience to the spirit and service is in direct conflict with the programing and structure. It is hard for him. But he is still making disciples who make disciples. Some of his disciples will soon see it as hypocrisy. He will have to decide rather to let the wineskin burst or switch to a new wineskin. Is this how it is with Bob and Honest2blog?
The planter: You are right about your friend - He will have to make a decision. I have to leave or the traditionally minded will kill me.
When we defend the organizational American Church we are also defending her poor disciple making poor stewardship record as well.
Given time your friend will get squeezed out by the comfortable.
To Philip: Do you think the American Church is healthy? How or how not? This is at the heart of the issue here.
To Robert: open up a new thread and I can tell you. 50 plus comments here is enough I think. This is the heart of the issue, but I think it has to be taken instance by instance. If I get more time I will comment more. :)
dude, phil...
i know you may not read this since "50 plus here is enough" but since a new one hasnt opened im posting here.
sorry, its been a while and MUCH has happened since i was last here. We do NOT reject pastoral leadership. We just acknowledge our apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and teacher leadership as well. we also don't use the phrase "pastor" as a title for the leader of any particular group. ALL perspectives of leadership are important because all of these gifts reflect something that the Church NEEDS.
Take, for instance, Eric, myself, and Bob. Eric is prophetic, i am pastoral, and Bob is...arent you apostolic, Bob? i get a little confused sometimes, but still, i think he is. Anyway, the three of us will have perspectives that differ in certain ways, even though, as you can tell, we all agree on Truth. A church that permits ONLY pastoral leadership is very much in danger. I know this comment is a long way from the post that spawned it, but sorry.
It's cool Zach. I'm beginning to see that I had a wrong impression of what you guys are doing. I am still not likely to agree with all of it, nor are you likely to agree with the way I've been "doing Church." But I think we are getting a better picture of each other in these discussions.
Wow, what a long day!! I was lucky not to have class today and it has been fun watching this argument progress in between study and homework. I think it is funny that Eric says I think like the people who killed Christ. I am also surprised he doesn't read Scripture with the full use of his God given resources. Surely you, Uncle Bob, use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral that you learned here at IWU? I've got a lot against Eric's statements, and can refute them statement by statement as he did with mine. But I won't do it here. Perhaps these things could be discussed further in the new discussion about the state of the American church. I look forward to more convo in the days to come!!
Have a great night/morning everyone!!
Are we heretics of tradition phil? How is that not what the leaders in the time of Christ were saying?
We are heretics of tradition for sure.
I'm not sure what you mean about the leaders of the time of Christ...? Jesus did not come to distroy any structures or traditions of the Jewish religion. He came to fulfill them. Christ was the fulfillment of the Law. He did not tear anything down, but fulfilled its true purpose.
Rejecting or ignoring tradition is a very dangerous thing. And I am sorry you guys can't see it that way.
And I am now done with this discussion here. If we want to talk about the condition of the American church let's open it up in a new discussion. If we want to talk about the importance of tradition, let's open it up in a new discussion. But I will not argue with you about structures and your flawed revolt against the 2000 (or 1700 if you prefer) years of Church that have brought this faith to you in the first place. I'm done here. Let's move on. Thanks.
5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with (G)impure hands?"
6And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'(H)THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7'(I)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men."
9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition.
10"For Moses said, '(L)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, '(M)HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (N)Corban (that is to say, [a]given to God),'
12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13thus invalidating the word of God by your (O)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
You invalidate the word of God through your tradition worship Phil. You say yourself speaking against the tradition is heresy. Heresy can only be committed against God. Who is your God Phil?
Poor Phil - got stuck in a corner and ducked. Happens all the time when hypocrisy is uncovered.
Phil - do you follow ALL the traditions of the Christian Fathers? Are you Catholic or Protestant? If you are Protestant (and I know you claim to be) then when did it become OK for you to throw out tradition? Why can you do it and then bash Bob for doing it?
At some point you bought into a system of theology that defied tradition. At some point you neglected or ignored tradition. Its time for you to look in that mirror for the speck before you point out Bob's log.
By the way - the Sermon on the Mount was a polemic against the leadership of the Jewish traditions. Take that back to college and discuss it.
just to clarify, phil, if you havent picked up from Eric or anon, Jesus came to fulfill the LAW, which was given by God. The traditions of the elders were the things that the Law was overlooked for.Jesus spoke against them pwerflly, and often
Post a Comment
<< Home