Drunken Mystic

One of my favorite movies as a child, and one that still chokes me up sometimes, is a movie called Chariots of Fire. Not only was it well written and acted and directed, but one of the main characters was a Christian athlete. Based on a true story, Eric Liddel was a Scottish missionary to China who happened to be a very fast runner. He and a Jewish character, Harold, are the two fastest and the main story alternates between the two of them and their journey to the Olympics.

At one point, the plot hinges around a heat for the Olympics that would take place on Sunday, which Liddel will not participate in since he wants to stay true to the Lord’s Day, the Sabbath. Even earlier in the movie, he encourages a young boy to not play soccer (football) on Sunday since that is the day to go to “church.” It all works out and Liddel ends up running in a different race on a different day, even though the British government was going to try to make him run on Sunday. He gets his gold medal and everyone is happy.

My heart swelled with pride as a young man that this missionary to China would stand up to everyone based on his principles, namely the Sabbath day, Sunday. I was taught the same thing as a young person and loved a mainstream movie that glorified my beliefs that we are to set aside Sunday as the Lord’s Day.

The problem with me now is that I can’t seem to find it in the Bible.

Now I still love that movie and want to honor Liddel’s sacrifice for the gospel in a foreign land (he died in China). But at the same time, what support is there in the scripture for setting aside Sunday as the Sabbath?

I have to admit that I don’t really find any support for it.

First of all, the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday. The Sabbath, according to the Old Testament Law, is Saturday. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that the Sabbath is now on Sunday.

Some people get around this by noting a few things in the New Testament. First, they say that Christ rose on Sunday, which is why that is our celebration time and our new Sabbath day. To be honest, I would say that Christ’s resurrection on Sunday more supports the Sabbath Day to be on Saturday, since He did not rise on that day, but rested instead … in rising on Sunday, Christ might have been keeping the Sabbath more than attempting to establish a new one.

Second, there is an instance where Paul is teaching on a Sunday (the first day of the week). But we can see in Acts that people met often during the week and in context, Paul had to leave the next day so they were getting as much teaching from them as they could more than establishing a new meeting day.

Third, there is the reference in Revelation where John begins his revelation by saying he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” This one is mysterious to me because nowhere else is the term “the Lord’s day” used anywhere in the New or Old Testament. Christendom has collectively interpreted this to mean Sunday, but John never mentions a particular day of the week and nowhere else is the first day of the week associated with the term. “the Lord’s day” is possessive, as in the Day of the Lord, which occurs several times in the Old and New Testament and refers each time to some aspect of God’s revelation or judgment.

What was the name of the book again? What is its primary theme?

Fourth, there is an instance in 2 Corinthians where Paul tells them to collect money on the first day of the week. This is the best support for meeting on Sundays in the Bible that you can find, in my consideration. But he isn’t commanding them to meet on Sundays, only that when they do, they should take up the collection then to expedite Paul’s collection for the churches. This is mainly administrative in function, not meant to be support of a legalistic doctrine of when to meet.

Whey would they choose the first day of the week anyway? Because the first day of the week, under the Roman system, was dedicated to their most influential god, the sun god, therefore calling it Sunday. Most of the days are named after Roman pagan gods. This was a common day of meeting and worship all over the empire, but for pagan reasons. The church probably had the day off and free time to meet for longer periods and do major business apart from their regular jobs or duties.

The Romans actually changed our idea of when the Sabbath was because of this day. As they transitioned into a state run religion, it was easier to tell everyone to worship on Sunday, since people were used to setting that day aside and when you force people to change religions, it helps if you give them some holdovers of their old one, like meeting on Sunday and their yearly worship of the sun god during the solstice which was on December 25. They had to justify these things according to the new religion, so Sunday became the Sabbath and December 25 became Christmas.

Let’s get away from the negative and see what the Bible says about observing days.

Colossians 2:16 makes it clear that Sabbaths (did you know there was more than one? read Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers and see) and New Moon festivals and holidays are not important anymore. They are actually shadows of the substance, which is Christ Himself based in the Old Law. And Hebrews says we have promises infintely greater than those shadows. Why would we return to them? They don’t define our spirituality in the least.

Galatians 4:9-11 says this: “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.”

To observe a specific day over another is of “weak and beggarly elements” and speaks of “bondage” and makes Paul concerned that his spread of the gospel in their lives was “in vain.”

That’s a powerful verse.

We don’t honor Christ by setting aside a specific day. Hebrews makes it clear that He is our Sabbath rest. To set aside the eternal Sabbath rest of Christ and give it to a day that will end is to cheapen it. This is a spiritual rest, of course, from our own labors and choosing His, to let Him work through us instead of seeking our own agendas and solutions, which are limited at best.

Our bodies do need physical rest, which is why we sleep a third of our life away. Our minds and emotions need rest, as well, times to be still and know God, to pull away from the busyness and just mentally rest.

I find it funny, and have for quite a while, that most people don’t “rest” on Sunday anyway, especially if they have responsibilities in the Body. People are busy working on Sunday and call it rest. It becomes a day off of a 9-5 job, unless you’re a professional minister, which it therefore becomes a day of work for you (see Priest Class Under the New Covenant for more on this).

I would say the biblical pattern is to get together every day with the Body of Christ as they did in Acts. This would be for fellowship primarily, then for discipleship and then praise and teaching. Where two or more are gathered, there He is in a unique manifestation of Himself for all to see. If you’re going to be traditional about it, observe every day as set aside for Him. Stay sensitive to the Spirit and know when to pull away and be alone and rest and be wise. All wisdom comes from Him, right? Not from some pseudo legalistic tradition we don’t really follow anyway. Be as wise as you can be by listening and following Him alone.

Peace.

Since this one came up so much over the past week, I’ll go ahead and do it.

I have 24 things on the list, by the way, so this will mark the halfway point of TICFITB.

On some level I’ve heard it my whole life. I hear it in different ways. “Well, you know we can’t help but sin.” “We are still sinners.” In one of our meetings in Korea, a young man with the motivation to encourage everyone said, “I can’t go five minutes without sinning,” which resulted from a very loving rebuke from me and the group as a whole.

Ultimately, I believe people are attempting to be encouraging with a statement that basically says, “its okay to sin once in a while, everybody does it.” I’m reminded of what my Dad used to say. If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you? Besides the fact I’m uncomfortable with using peer pressure to excuse sin, I have to admit …

I can’t find it in the Bible.

Now, there are two verses that people use to justify these types of statements, so let’s discuss them now.

First off we have the passage out of Romans 7 where Paul discusses the times when he wants to do good and cannot do it and instead does the bad stuff he doesn’t want to do. I’ve heard this from individuals in personal conversation as well as public teaching or preaching. “See? If Paul cannot be righteous, what hope do we have?”

The context of this passage tells a different story, however. Paul is discussing the law in chapter 7 and is explaining from personal experience that although the Law taught him right and wrong, and he even desired to do it, he found that he could not be righteous on his own under the Law. So he was not discussing a Christian’s inability to be righteous but someone under the Law. In fact, he thanks Christ for the ability to live apart from the law and live by the Spirit, continuing into chapter 8.

What does it mean to live by the Spirit? Be reminded its the Holy Spirit. How can we live by the Holy Spirit and not live a life that is holy?

The other verse is from Paul again. Poor Paul … even Peter knew he was misunderstood. Paul says in 1 Timothy that he is the chief of sinners. But again, if you look at the context of that statement, he calls himself the chief of sinners BEFORE the grace and mercy of Christ so that Paul might be an example (remember he persecuted and killed Christians!).

An example of what? That even the worst sinner is redeemable by God. And redemption is not living like the chief of sinners while you call yourself Christian.

Romans takes great pains to let us know that sin no longer has any power over us through our death from sin to life in God, freedom from slavery to sin to slavery to God and through the death a divorce from our evil husband, the Devil, to our new husband, God. Paul says that God’s grace is sufficient, that there is no excuse any longer for sin. We are called saints, kings, priests, sons and daughters of God, but never sinners by the New Testament writers. Sinners are those who need Christ.

Despite whether you are evangelical or charismatic, you believe you are “filled with the Holy Spirit” at some point in your walk. How can you be filled with holiness and not have the ability to be holy? How can you be filled with something you can’t be?

The scriptures that support a walk in Christ that can be righteous are too numerous to put here, not without getting a TLDR from Eric, at least (I might be too late!). Peter tells us to be holy as God is holy. Where does sin come into that?

This does not mean that if you sin at all you aren’t a Christian. Thank God for the cleansing power of the blood of Christ. It means that we are not defined by sin any longer, if we are truly in Christ, and that means that a life of sin will not define us.

Two more things here to help us understand the holy life we can live through righteousness. First of all, this does not mean that we will not make mistakes. An honest mistake is not a sin. If you stub your toe on the dresser on your way to the bathroom, that doesn’t mean you’re not holy. It just means you live in a fallen world where the just and the unjust all fall side by side. If a mistake causes a problem with others, take responsibility for it and apologize, but that doesn’t mean you sinned. That just makes you humble and actually more righteous for how you responded in the midst of it.

Secondly, temptation is not a sin. Hebrews tells us that Christ was tempted with EVERYTHING we’ve been tempted with in order to make Him the perfect high priest. That means that the most heinous thing anyone could ever be tempted with, He was tempted with. I wouldn’t counsel sitting and thinking about all those things, but the principle is valid. Even though Christ was tempted more than we can imagine, He did not sin.

Holiness also does not mean that we necessarily want to do what God wants us to do. Jesus had a will that was different from His Father, too, and struggled to the shedding of blood in the Garden with giving up his will. But He chose His Father’s will in the end.

If Christ lives within us, that’s the victory we have within us. This does not mean it will be easy. Many times it is extremely difficult. But the same grace that can pass you from death to life can keep you righteous. Lay hold of it in moments of temptation. There will always be a way out of it.

Peace to the SAINTS.

So you have a “church”, or rather a group of people that begin to meet in a certain building every week or so and gather to worship God together. For whatever reason, you decide that it would be prudent to make sure you have a count of who’s really a part of your “church” and who’s not, so you require people to fill out a form and submit it for “membership” in your “church.”

I can’t seem to find that in the Bible.

This is a common practice, and as I’ve spoken with many leaders and pastors over the years, I have found various reasons behind why they have this as a part of their fellowship. Some do it because they think that is what should be done and don’t question it in the least. Some are open and have what they feel are practical reasons for it. Others feel very threatened and quote random Bible verses that we’ll discuss in a moment. Ultimately, however, it comes down to, “this is the way we choose to do it. You can either be a part of us or not.” Which, on a certain level, is true. If God has chosen or allowed them to be the authority over that fellowship, they will stand before God one day for their decisions and I should be careful how I challenge them.

But it is also true that I will stand before God for what He’s shown me, as well, and so for that reason I have never been a registered member of a fellowship.

To get a little real here for a moment, I’m going to ask a question. Can you really see Jesus signing His name to a piece of paper to prove He’s a member of a certain fellowship? Maybe He was “registered” somehow at a local synagogue, but I highly doubt it.

Some fellowships defend the practice biblically by pointing to a passage where Paul describes a listing of widows and making sure that they are truly widows that are in need (1 Timothy 5). They stretch this verse to defend a practice that, in many organizations, is absolutely necessary to do any ministry or even partake in communion or vote on congregational issues.

There are many country clubs that operate the same way.

Here’s another question. Before Christ bent down to wash the disciple’s feet, did they ask for a paper qualifying Him for the ministry? It sounds ludicrous, and it is.

Going back to the scripture about the widows, it is very important to remember that both John the Baptist, James, and even the prophets taught the importance of taking care of widows and orphans, taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. It was a common practice. It was even one of the first issues of the Church in Acts as the twelve couldn’t serve the widows and do the teaching and praying that they felt was their responsibility. So they appointed men full of the Spirit, of which Stephen the martyr was one.

But it seems like, in context, that some widows were not in need since they had family members that could care for them. Others were becoming busybodies in the Kingdom because they were still young and able to find husbands or contribute in some way and used their new free time unwisely. So by helping certain widows, the local Church was actually enabling division and laziness and all kinds of things, according to Paul.

In other words, this was an administrative thing to determine who the local Body should be accountable to help. Is this why organizations have registered membership? I have never found this to be the case. They have registered members in order to control who can get involved, to protect their organization and to streamline resources to those who are in line with them doctrinally, because God forbid they actually help someone who disagrees with them about the rapture.

This becomes another way to forego true relationship with others in the Body. It becomes another checklist that we make sure that we have done. It makes pastors feel safe since the people working in certain ministries have signed a piece of paper that they agree with either core or detailed doctrines but many times they’ve only spoken to them for a couple minutes to an hour or so. Out of so many in the congregation, why would they spend more time to get to know someone? It’s a beaurecratic system with no life in it whatsoever.

It’s corporate America at its best. We have programs which require positions, so there needs to be some sort of application process where people like “pastors” or committees make certain decisions based on political power, very rarely on relationship.

I have regularly attended a fellowship that required membership for certain things, and since I had a good relationship with the pastors there, they asked me to cover some Sunday School teaching. Then they realized that I wasn’t a “member”, even though they admitted to my face their respect for me and my wife because we were more committed to their fellowship (based on attendance and financial giving) than most people who had signed on the dotted line. They allowed me to teach but told me to keep it quiet that I wasn’t a member. Well, it got out (not from me) and I wasn’t asked again, even though everyone was blessed by the experience and asked me when I would be teaching again. Their reason for not wanting it to get out? If someone higher up in the denomination got wind of it, they’d get in trouble. For a non-member to teach would lead to absolute chaos!

I respected their wishes while standing for my convictions. I did not badmouth them to people who quesioned why I didn’t teach anymore. I honored them as much as I was able, but God eventually opened doors for ministry and teaching elsewhere.

I know many people who have moved somewhere and began attending another fellowship, yet they were “members” at an old fellowship where there is a new pastor and they haven’t attended there for years … but they have to be “members” somewhere, right? Only when it comes time to be involved in a new program position are they motivated to switch their “letter of membership,” even though they’ve been attending and even tithing in their new fellowship for a year or so.

Is this the type of Kingdom we want to be a part of?

Why are you so adamant about this? some might ask. It’s just a piece of paper, right?

To put it rather bluntly, my name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, and that is good enough for me. Christ lives within me in a mystical way I barely comprehend and will never fully understand until I stand before Him face to face. I am brother and sister to every believer because we have the same Father, not because we are listed on the same manifest.

Ever wondered why its not in the Bible? I have a feeling that relationship was so central to the type of community they had, they could see the change in people from a life of legalism or paganism to Christ and freedom from sin and didn’t need a written testimony to be on file. There was a genuine testimony they could remember.

We should trust pastors and teachers and one another because of relationship and a visible life of integrity that we can respect and honor in one another. No one should have to go through a worldly chain of command to be a minister in the Body of Christ. Putting such weight on traditions of men takes glory away from what Christ has accomplished in the life of a believer and the gifts that He has given without regard to person or label and foregoes the type of relationship and discipleship we so desperately need in order to enact spiritual change and growth.

If you are a believer, we are members of one another. If we fellowship together, let it be based on true commitment that draws us closer to one another.

Peace.

So you have a “church”, a fellowship that meets somewhere, maybe a house or a ballroom or a high school theater or cafeteria. At some point, if you start to grow, there comes a very important discussion. The question is asked by leadership or other members of the fellowship. Sometimes it was the goal all along.

“When are we going to move into our own building?”

This is one of the most common concerns for any fellowship. Where do we meet? And the most common answer is to either rent a place every Sunday or to build and own one of your own. Most fellowships desperately desire their own facility, even going so far as holding it up as a signal of their success.

My problem is that I can’t find that goal mentioned anywhere in the New Testament.

Now, if you want to include the Old Testament, then you will definitely find it there, and that is because having a building to worship in is an Old Covenant idea. The Temple of Solomon was back in the time when God’s people were still under the Law. Jesus plainly taught that the worship would now be in Spirit and truth and not on some special place.

But as far as the New Covenant, I really can’t find it. We are told that God now lives in us, that we are built together as living stones as His house of worship. We are told that our home is in heaven.

It is curious to me that the issue of where we meet never comes up in all of the letters from the writers of the New Testament. This means one of several possible things. Either they didn’t grow at all beyond the initial group (which from what we know from history is not true) or it was never a goal at all. Many will argue that just because it doesn’t mention the issue doesn’t mean they didn’t build buildings and meet in them, which is somewhat true. But doesn’t the New Testament mention other administrative or everyday issues? Giving, collecting for widows (when was the last time you did that at your church?), the behaviour of children and what you should drink when your tummy hurts is all in there, but there is a strange silence about the location of meetings.

Other than houses, of course. The only meeting place mentioned in the New Testament was either an extremely public place or someone’s house, the most common being a home, of course.

We do know that later fellowships did build buildings to congregate in, but what does that really prove? Others started to believe that Christ never really came in the flesh, that He was just some sort of ghost and never really died or resurrected … this all happened around the same time … should we do that, too? I’m a weirdo in that I’m concentrating specifically on what the Bible says concerning the subject.

When this is mentioned, you invariably get the “we know, we know, the Church isn’t a building, its the people. We know there’s nothing sacred about the building.” This coming from the same voices that led a chorus of “we are standing on holy ground” at a building dedication a few years ago and spend a few thousand dollars on the steeple because “it’s not a Church without a steeple.”

When you talk to many leaders that are called by some pastors, you get the idea that they have a building and stuff at the building so that they can draw people in. Some even say it outright. They have a basketball court and a baseball field for the church softball league as if competition within the body of Christ wasn’t bad enough. “And there’s nothing wrong with that,” they say.

Really? There’s nothing wrong with someone coming to your church because you babysit their kids (called the nursery or children’s church) for free or for a tax (called a tithe) and have games and fun social activities at this big community center with a cross on it they call a “church”? Again, my question is, if it is so important to draw others in this way, why isn’t it in the Bible?

The use of a building isn’t inherently a sin, although its strong connection with the Old Covenant makes me highly cautious, but there is an easy point you can use to judge your heart on the matter. If you lost your building, would you still have a fellowship of people who wanted to assemble out of love for one another? Some would for a temporary time if you promised them a new building was on its way, but many would still leave for percieved greener pastures.

If you sold your building and the land it was on and gave it to the poor, what would happen to your fellowship? Most would have to admit they would no longer exist. What would we do? they would ask.

Don’t we have public places to meet? Parks, squares, vacant lots or fields where people would allow large groups to congregate, even for a nominal fee? Of course we also have our homes, where people could see us as we are, as we live, and we could show Christ in a real way instead of with shows and lights and sacred furniture where stains are a horror.

There are other issues too, like connecting the decietfulness of wealth with a pulbic vision of a rich “church” in material things and what it means for Christians to own and put so many of their resources toward brick, wood and stone. I’m just challenging the notion that we need large buildings to fulfill the great commission of discipleship. I would go so far as to say that those buildings stand directly in the way of it.

This is too difficult for most, however. They are satisfied with catering to common culture in order to slip the gospel in there somewhere and call themselves church. To move away from that seems like too much effort. Believe me or not, but if we met in large public places and in homes, the world would SEE the gospel lived out, and that is a much more powerful thing than we could ever realize in our American idea of Christianity. Most churches are fine with spreading the gospel as long as the world walks in the building and comes to them to hear it.

Peace.

There is a very important struggle going on within Christianity that is important to point out. Most see it as a conflict between two sides of the political spectrum, where God sees it as a deeper struggle.

Growing up in institutionalized religion, or what some would call the church, I had an experience that I would say was pretty common in that situation. The leaders, pastors and members of the fellowship would often associate their Christianity with a political position. In fact, many on one side or the other would even question the sincerity of the faith of those they disagreed with.

In all my readings of the New Testament, I have never seen a deep political commentary or a doctrine specifying what “side” Christians should be on.

With all the political posturing by those on both sides of the religious politcal community, you would think they knew how God would vote and who God would vote for. And if it your political affiliation were that big of an issue, what does the Bible say about it?

In the New Testament? Absolutely nothing.

Now, I’m not discussing the Old Testament with this issue because under the Law you would have to root for the nation of Israel and the restoration of a monarchy with the king being from the line of David. For believers under the New Covenant, however, we are citizens of a different nation (the eternal Kingdom of Heaven), and our King is of the line of David (through Mary and Joseph, Jesus Christ) and seated on His throne above.

The New Testament does detail our relationship with the government over us, but never does it discuss a political position to take in regards to that government.

Let us, just for a moment, consider the situation the Church, the Body of Christ, was in over the first century. Many of them were Jews, but many were Gentile and that number would grow quickly to outnumber the Jewish Christians (as it is today). They lived under a Repulbic that was dominant in trade and had a powerful military, many consider the most powerful military in the world at the time. Citizens had some basic rights. Christianity, however, was not the state religion and was many times persecuted because of that fact. The Republic in power was known for its corruption and the morals of the nation were fairly bad. The nation was also extremely wealthy and materialism was insane.

Sound familiar?

We know that the Romans were power hungry in their military campaigns. Why don’t we have an account of any protests against oppressive wars? Why don’t we have any statement against the moral depravity of the nation and the government? With the singular exception of Paul using his citizenship to save his life (which didn’t ultimately work because he was martyred), why don’t we have one example or discussion of Christians needing to fight for their rights?

It really is very simple. See, they believed Jesus when he told them that the world would hate them, and they easily saw that the governments of their day were of the world. They expected it. They also knew that the world would not change, that Truth was a narrow way and would not be a majority. They were righteous and obedient not because it would change their communities or their nation but because they would recieve reward in Heaven. Period. Jesus told them that they would always have the poor. He spoke of wars and rumors of wars up through the last days. He spoke of judments and a world generally in chaos that was ordered by his Father and given authority by God.

He also spoke of an eternal Kingdom that was not of this world. The rewards attained there are beyond our comprehension but worth our every intention.

And the writers of the New Testament understood this to a degree that we fail to grasp. The main concepts concerning government and the Church are these: we obey God more than man when the two conflict (especially in spreading the Gospel and meeting together), God gives authority to every government and uses it and the leaders as His instrument, and therefore we are to respect that fact by obeying the government we are citizens of in this temporal realm.

Revelation tells us that the world will not get progressively better but worse. Man will become more religious and sinful and power hungry and conflicts will escalate. We expect things from our human government that can only be attained through Christ. Whether righteousness or compassion, peace or judgment, these are things done by God through His time and eternal purpose.

We are decieved because we get a vote. The Romans had a vote, too. The Bible declares that despite our input, God instills leadership and governments and removes them. Are conservative Christians willing to understand that God put Bill Clinton in power for 8 years? Are liberal Christians willing to accept that George Bush is God’s choice for president?

Fighting amongst ourselves for a temporal gain that won’t matter much in the eternal is not a work of God. It is a distraction of the enemy to keep us from doing the true work of the Kingdom as a unified Body.

As part of our service and respect of our country (that God has ordained to be ours), I believe we should vote our conscience and what we believe to be the best choice based on our relationship with God. I know I do. But am I to judge God’s servants, my brothers and sisters in Christ, because we happen to see things differently on some or many issues? Our unity is not to be based on politics but on Christ and His work on the earth.

The problem is that the Church is trying to get the government to do their job. It is the Church’s job to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, give to the poor. Although the percentage of money given in these areas is pitiful in most assemblies, its not just about money. This is a personal thing. This is your job. It is the Church’s job to take care of the elderly and the sick, even healing them! It is the Church’s job to be a shining example of righteousness in the world, to live what is right regardless of local law.

The only thing we don’t really expect the government to do is to evangelize for us, although we probably wouldn’t mind adding that to the list.

And to repeat myself, we do these things out of obedience and love for God and one another, knowing that our reward is in Heaven, not expecting some Utopian existence here on Earth because we were proactive enough.

Peace.

Allow me to clarify what I mean here –

A person feels a “calling” into the “ministry” and proceeds to look at the steps he/she must take to be a minister in the Body of Christ. Because this person has contact with the current Christian religious system, a couple of steps are assumed.

Seminary, which I’ve already addressed, comes first. There has to be some fromal training in a classroom as a first step. Second, he must find a council of man to ordain him, give him a piece of paper that therefore validates his ministry.

I can’t seem to find that in the Bible.

People were called to specific ministries and roles within the Body, were summarily sent and blessed by spiritual assemblies or even spiritual authority, but to say that you were ordained by some organization or group is just not in the Bible.

From what I can find in the NT, only God ordains someone for ministry. Paul spends a couple chapters at the beginning of Galatians to prove that no one gave him his ministry, and he answers to no man. God gave him the message and the ministry. Paul would not allow any man to glory in God’s calling and authority in his life.

And in context with the rest of the letter, he explains why this was so important. An ordained class of men was of the Old Law, which is completely at odds with the the New Covenant. Needing another’s stamp of approval only diminishes the leading and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The testimony in Acts bears witness to this. After years of local ministry, Paul (Saul at the time) and Barnabas were separated and sent as missionaries by the Holy Spirit; the assembly at Antioch could only offer their aggreement and blessing to what God had already ordained.

This is a sweeping statement that could be a sermon all on its own, but how prideful do we have to be to assume that we can accomplish through organization, testing and program what God has ordained to accomplish through his Spirit?

Now to be fair, perhaps there is a practical application that some are trying to put into practice. Often Paul would commend and approve of certain ministers and ask for them to be recieved in love and in his stead, even his name. On a certain level, knowing someone is “ordained” by an established group can be comforting because there’s less chance the dude is a fruitcake or wacky or something.

But while I see some practical need here, the application is not fulfilling what the Bible gives us as examples. In each case, Paul commended someone based on relationship and observed fruit in their life. His counsel to Timothy is very telling in that he speaks of the necessity of a life of integrity and spiritual maturity as necessary for Christian leadership and mentions not once schooling, formal training, or the stamp of approval from an outside organization. How would you know a life of integrity and spiritual maturity? These things must be observed and clearly seen. An intimate relationship must exist to see the everyday life of a brother or sister.

Most of the time, however, modern “ministers’ are “ordained” because of a degree at a Bible school of some sort and/or an interview to determine adherence to denominational doctrine (often this is very detailed and one deviance can mark a brother a heretic and make or break the deal). While there are exceptions to this (and these exceptions encourage me — I know of at least one or two ministries that “ordains” based on relationship and character and recognition of an existing gift rather than external factors), saldly, I’ve just described the norm. And the norm is not directly mentioned in the scripture.

When you are part of a real community of believers, people can see your life and your integrity and righteousness. You are an example to others as others are an example to you. Your gifts and doctrine are well known by all because you live your life with others.

You can be “ordained” in most denominations today and be cheating on your wife, beating your kids, and embezzling money because your life is deemed “private” and most people don’t dig too deep … and without relationship, it would be rude, anyway.

I’m tired of the term “lay leader” in the Body of Christ, by the way. Its so related, it shouldn’t be its own post here, but that’s not in the Bible either. You are a pastor, evangelist, apostle, prophet or teacher whether you are paid to do it or not. I long for a time when leaders in the Church are leaders because they have a powerful gift of the Spirit and lead a life of righteousness and integrity and not because they’ve jumped through the right hoops.

Actually, it already is that way; God is just waiting on us to say our “Amen.”

Peace.

I wonder sometimes if we really understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants. I wonder if its just this generation or if is been a common problem over the last two thousand years. I would guess the latter.

When Jesus held up the Passover bread and wine and introduced Himself as the New Covenant symbolized there in that centuries old tradition, do we realize what changed? Sometimes I wonder.

I wonder because there is a lack of teaching about the New Covenant. I wonder because of how we act and what our focus has, often times, become.

I will concentrate on only one aspect of what I’m discussing here, although there will be a related subject next week.

In the Old Covenant, God chose a special tribe, the tribe of Moses and Aaron, the Levites, to pass on the responsibility of being the priesthood of Israel. They were the chosen of the chosen, so to speak. They recieved the honor not by merit but by lineage. They were not to have any land divided among the Israelites, since God Himself would be their inheritance. They would wear special clothes and had special duties to perform. They were the mediators between God and man, a holy position and one not to be taken lightly. Priests died when they did. This was a special class of people whose job it was to minister to God on behalf of the people.

But once the Son of God was crucified and resurrected and the Holy Spirit given to those who repented, the Old Covenant died away.

That’s right. The Old Covenant passed away in its entirety. Reading through Hebrews and Galatians and some of 2 Corinthians, we understand that the Old Covenant was completely replaced by the New Covenant. They cannot exist together.

And there is no longer any priest class in the New Covenant. As the New Testament unfolds, we see a new thing entirely. We have one High Priest, Jesus Christ, the perfect one who intercedes for us before God. The Holy of Holies is open now to all, the curtain torn. The High Priest now lives in us, so our access to the throne of grace is free and unencumbered. We no longer have to tell our brothers and sisters, “know God,” for we all know Him and can hear from Him directly.

This may be hard to concieve for some, but too often we still have a priest class in the Body of Christ. Whenever we place someone in a position where they are to hear from God in our place, they have become our priest. You can call them whatever you like, pastor, minister, father, but when you place a man or woman in a position where they are to mediate between you and God, you deny one of the central merits of the New Covenant.

The Law was placed as a master for the slave of the flesh, to teach what was Holy and to show our inability to keep holy before He who is Holy was revealed to us in bodily form. Our flesh appreciates a priest. It makes life real easy.

Moses and the nation of Israel had crossed the Red Sea on dry land and came to Mount Sinai. God came down on the mountain in fire, speaking in thunderous noise and sounding a loud trumpet. His command was for the people to leave the camp, come near the mountain but do not touch or they would die. Moses had to make them. He went up the mountain and returned to find the nation “a far off.” How did they get there? They proceded to tell Moses, “you go up and talk to God, we don’t want to hear from Him ourselves. He might kill us when He talks to us. You talk to Him and we’ll talk to you.” Remember this was the generation who would not see the promised land because of their unbelief.

Now we are to hear from God ourselves. We are a nation of priests and prophets and kings. The Holy Spirit has been given to lead us into “all truth.” We need no man to mediate for us. But often it comforts us to know that we can do our own thing and hear from this other dude so he can tell us what God thinks. Many speakers even use other men’s commentaries to interpret the Bible for them.

If you ask most Christians, “what has God been teaching you lately?”, you will either get a confused stare or they might even remember what the message was about from the pastor last Sunday. There might be the rare few who might bring up a smaller Bible study that has blessed them or even a personal devotion. Rarer still will be those that were speaking with God, praying or reading His scripture, and had God share with them personally.

Remember Peter was blessed because “flesh and blood” did not reveal Jesus was the Christ, but the Father did.

We use the term “relationship with God” (or if you’re extreme you might even say “relationship with Christ”) all the time. But if a relationship necessitates communication, most Christians have a relationship with a minister, a book about the Bible, or some other form of media that entertains them and tells them what God has to say.

When we look to any other man to be a mediator between us and God, we place ourselves in bondage again. We deny the power of the Holy Spirit to lead and teach and change hearts.

The sad thing is that this priestly attitude is too often propagated by ministers and leaders themselves. Call it ignorance or pride, but since they’ve had more education, experience and have a paid position, many times there is an overwhelming feeling that they are more spiritual than the congregation and deservedly so.

Before I go any further, let me make it clear that there is leadership within the Body of Christ. This leadership is given by the Holy Spirit with gifts and offices and authority based on faith and integrity. There is a greater judgment for those leaders (as indicated in James) which implies a responsibility to the Body of Christ to teach or to instruct or guide. I see nothing against paid positions or spiritual authority in the Body of Christ. They are instituted by God (more on this next week).

But this leadership is not to be the mediator between you and God. When they do, they take the place of Christ and try to do the work of the Holy Spirit. I John says that we do not need any man to teach us because of the “annointing that resides within” (“Christ” means “annointed one”). Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14 that when we come together we all have something to give. Most of the time Christians come to a meeting wondering what they’re going to get. If we take the Bible as truth, then it doesn’t matter if there are five or five thousand in the meeting, all have something to give … and he didn’t mean a tithe! He said a song or hymn or word or something to express or give to the meeting to encourage all. We are all ministers and priests and worshippers.

No part of our physical body exists to minister to itself. Every part of our body assists in function another part of our body. The spiritual Body is the same. You have each been given a spiritual gift if Christ resides within you. That gift was given for the edification of the body. As you read in Ephesians, Paul was talking to the Body as a whole when he said God made some apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors. Which are you? You have one of them. There are other gifts, as well, for the ministry of the Body. When one part of the Body is left to do all the work, then the other parts are either paralyzed, spastic, or sick. All need to do their part, to give, for all to be whole and healthy.

So when I stand in front of people and “lead” them, what am I to do? I am to realize that these are not my sheep, they are His, and I am to lead them to Him. My teaching is from the Spirit in me to the Spirit in them. I am to be guided by the Spirit in my ministry to lead others to follow the Spirit in every aspect of their ministries. If He be lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself. I must guard against the temptation of pride in thinking I have a position in a person’s life that is not mine but Christ’s alone. Paul warns Timothy of not giving a young Christian a leadership position because he could be tempted with the same sin of pride as the Devil.

This is not easy, because God shows you things and then you share them and people look at you sometimes with awe and respect and it can be a real ego boost. But we are to be careful. We who stand and lead and have been given the authority to do so will be judged one day for who we led them to. Us or Him. If we lead them to Him, we are in effect working ourselves out of a job, teaching the sheep to follow the Shepherd. Milk is necessary for a time, but meat and maturity are the goal.

Too often we are more comfortable with a congregation on the tit.

Peace.

First of all, in a little pet peeve … the Church is not a building, its the people and community that makes one up … but you know what I mean, so let’s get on with it.

I’ve dealt with this one my whole life, it feels like. What is it about American Christianity that equates outward appearance with inward spirituality?

When I was going into the 4th grade, my parents put me into a Christian school. It wasn’t all that bad, except for a crazy teacher here or there that the school was desperate enough to hire and allow to go on her rampages, but there was a dress code for the school. Now, I’m not against dress codes necessarily, and we’ll get to that later, but this one was very strict. You had to wear long pants (I can’t remember if jeans were allowed), a collared shirt with at least three buttons (and only one of those could be unbuttoned), and your hair could not be past your eyes, your ears or your collar.

We moved from that school to the Atlanta area in the middle of my 6th grade year. The fellowship we attended was extremely conservative in its dress (suits, ties were pretty standard … on Sunday nights ties and coats were optional).

I have to say I never understood this fascination with external appearances from people who say they believe in an invisible God, even as a child. After deciding to really commit my heart and life to the Lord, a real repentant time, my heart began to rebel against this even more. I knew the religious game and how to play it well. I knew that what had changed in me was internal, and I actually started to feel free enough to grow my hair long, quit basketball and learn how to play the guitar so I could rock for the Lord.

This was unique in Northern Georgia for the time. I was one of the first guys to have long hair at North Gwinnett High School. I might have been the first to put it up in a ponytail. Most people I knew who got “saved” cut their hair and “cleaned up” their appearance. Most of the fellowships taught that it was one and the same.

An embarassing story about myself tells of a time when a friend invited me along to a local Baptist fellowship for some special event. The usher took one look at me and gave me an eat crap or die look for my long hair, my heavy metal t-shirt and jeans and the cap I was wearing. He pounced. “Take that hat off in the house of God,” he told me very sternly.

My response? “I am the house of God.”

Now, years later and a little more mature (not much …), I probably would have taken off the hat and maybe even addressed the subject in a much calmer tone. I would still probably challenge him, though.

For the last four years I have worked at a Christian school. One of my main criticisms has been the strict dress code and rules on length of hair. Why are we comfortable equating Christianity with external appearances? Why do we shrug our shoulders as if that’s just the way it is and we can’t change it?

There is still, within the American Christian mindset, the attitude that to be a Christian means to dress a certain way, especially if you’re minister. People who minister should definitely wear something nice, at least a shirt and tie, unless you’re the youth pastor or a Contemporary Christian artist … then you can look cool.

I don’t find standards of appearance anywhere in the Bible, at least not the ones we try to have. They didn’t even have suits or polo shirts or loafers or cool turtleneck sweaters when the Bible was written. There aren’t any different standards for leaders in the Church, either. Nowhere was Timothy or Titus or anyone else told to dress up a little more for the meetings.

Under the law, of course, the Levites had to wear very elaborate clothes and be very ritualistic. But I read somewhere that we’re not under the Law anymore. So we look to the New Testament and the New Covenant to address the issue.

There are two main scriptures that you could apply here. In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses a couple of things. First he addresses head coverings. He says that in the public meeting, women should cover their heads and men should not. This was a sign of the authority of a man in their life, whether their husband, father, older brother or even the pastor. It was a sign of submission for women. There is also a short mention of long and short hair, how women should have long hair and men should have shorter hair.

To address the head covering, it is fairly clear that Paul is putting forth a standard based on a principle of the submission of women, so that when they minister in a public meeting, there is still an outward sign of their submission to authority. Let’s remember a couple things here. First of all, in the Jewish culture, under the Jewish law, women were to be completely silent during the meetings, so any opportunity to share was pretty progressive. Second, women would many times lead pagan ceremonies, even serving as prostitutes at times. Paul was giving freedom while making a distinction, using a cultural symbol that most would understand.

There are two reactions to this idea. The first extreme is to say that was only the culture then and we don’t have to really follow that anymore because that’s not our culture. Really? Then why do we push our culture on the Body of Christ? Seems hypocritical to me, but we’ll get to that more later.

The other reaction is to have women cover their heads with a hat or shawl or something. I actually don’t have as much of a problem with this one, because at least you can find an example of it in the Bible. The women covered their heads in India where we were, and it didn’t keep women from participating in the meeting.

There are varying degrees of reaction between the two, but that’s the general shift. I feel like as long as the principle is being followed, where women understand on some level their submission to male authority, how it is symbolized shouldn’t really matter. That’s a personal feeling on a debatable issue, however.

With hair, there are two standards. First, men are supposed to have “short hair”. This was one of the most hypocritically used scriptures in the Bible as I grew up. People would point this verse out to me at our fellowship growing up. “Short hair” in the biblical times could be anything to your shoulders. The only people who had really short hair (like we think of today) were Roman pagans. Short hair in that sense was a symbol of paganism to the Jews and early Christians if anything. Also, women were not supposed to cut their hair. At all. Here is the hypocritical part. Fine, you want me to cut my hair because of what the Bible says … what about that 80 year old prayer warrior with the blue hair whose locks are maybe three inches long if you extend the curls? Have you pulled her aside in the back of the building and explained the scripture to her? Of course not.

And here we have it. In those moments, people are not trying to teach scripture or the Kingdom of God. They are pushing their own conservative culture on the Body of Christ. They might as well be Judaizers asking about circumcision and whether or not we eat pork. Its just as detestable to the freedom we have in Christ.

The other scripture is that ever elusive and misused “Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greek” in order that some may be saved. This one ticks me off, too, because Paul was actually talking about evangelism and how we shouldn’t let culture be a stumbling block to sinners. We use it to put the Body of Christ in bondage to a worldly culture. How many sinners show up to your service every week checking out whether or not you’re wearing the right getup? I would guess not very many.

The other thing that chaps me is when American missionaries show up in some foreign land and make some dudes in Africa dress like them in suits and rolex watches and sing American hymns. Its shameful to me to equate the supernatural new birth with conversion to American culture.

In actuality, the scripture says we are NOT supposed to dress up. Peter tells women NOT to adorn themselves in outward ways, but that their beauty should be inward and their character should shine for all to see. There are extremes here, as well, but what is the principle? That character is what people should see. Character is what is important to God. Why do we spend so much time on the outward appearance?

James also rebukes a fellowship for giving special treatment to the rich, saying that instead the poor should get the place of honor, for they are rich in faith. How could they tell the difference? Its possible that the community just knew, and they probably did, but common sense also tells us that the rich probably dressed just a little better.

Now I’m not against standards, necessarily, just ones that we justify with Christian motives. At a public school, if they want to have uniforms, that’s fine, but when we do it at a Christian school, our lives are a testimony and it says something about what we believe. People watch us. I believe we do need to dress modestly, but there are cultural standards of modesty that are constantly changing and different countries where the standards are drastically different. The Bible itself does not address skirt length or bare shoulders or even belly buttons. The main issue with how immodest most people dress has to do with ignorance (which necessitates more discipleship …) or motivation (dressing purposefully to attract the opposite sex).

It has been my experience however, that as people mature in Christ, they dress a little more modestly, especially women. Men begin to dress a little more manly, as well, as becoming a man of God is empowering to true masculinity. Women are more assured of love and attention through the family of God, female friends and their relationship with their Heavenly Husband above all, and their dress will begin to change. They become more firm in their boundaries, feminine in their relationships, and assured of their worth as He tells them they are attractive to Him because of their character. I’ve seen this many times at the House … and I’ve never had to address it. As I point them continually to Christ, the growth is natural, for both men and women, to fulfill what God has for them in their gender roles within their families, their marriages and the Body of Christ as a whole.

Alright, so now we get to the one scripture that I still struggle with. In Romans, Paul tells us that if something external (he uses food, but the principle is there) causes someone to stumble or offends their convictions, we should be sensitive to that brother (or sister) and not place a stumbling block in his way.

This is the one that tells us to be sensitive and love our brothers and sisters despite their convictions about debatable subjects. I struggle with it because how I dress isn’t important … or shouldn’t be to me. When I get up in front of people to minister, I don’t want my outfit to cause people to turn me off automatically. I go back on forth on this one.

But there are two points to be made here. First of all, he’s talking about new converts who don’t know any better. Second, he calls them weak in the faith. These convictions about external matters are spiritual weakness. They don’t prove any spiritual maturity, only the lack of it.

If I had a baby Christian come up to me and say they had a real problem with the jeans and t-shirts I wear when I minister (maybe a polo shirt on a special occasion!), I might have to be sensitive. But you know how many times that has happened in my lifetime? I can’t think of one. I can’t think one instance where a baby Christian has been offended at my choice of clothing in any way shape or form. It’s usually the ones who have been Christians for a long time and have been raised in bondage (to be honest, that’s what it is) or the leadership or other ministers. Pastors and ministers and other leaders make the rules and make the excuses.

My final question would be this: why is it okay that our leaders are spiritually weak?

To me? It isn’t.

Peace.

This one is not as easy as you might think. It is easy in the sense that its not in the Bible, but difficult because so many use excuses to justify denominationalism.

To a certain degree, there has been a movement among the church away from denominationalism, and it has been refreshing to meet more and more people, mostly among the younger generation, that don’t care about the label on the door as much as they do the heart of the ministry and the congregation. There are different reasons for this. For many younger people, it is a genuine belief that there is one Church and that the same God that saved them saves the others in that other building down the street. And while there might be some differences, those differences aren’t important enough to permanently divide people.

Still others are being influenced by worldly philosophies that border on New Age beliefs. They take the concept to an extreme by saying that the same God that we worship is also worshipped by others in other religions. Who can know for sure? This is an increasingly popular philosophy among younger Christians, as well. There is also the celebration of diversity that can be good, as well, but it can also be too accepting of things that are actually detrimental to spirituality.

Mixed in there are the younger generation that hasn’t grown up in Church and therefore don’t care about the church politics.

Of course the genuine belief that the family of God is connected through those under the blood of Jesus and little else encourages me. The New Age worldly wisdom frustrates me, although I’ve come to expect the chaff among the wheat. They both grow up together.

All this to say that its become popular to speak against denominations over the past ten years or so. A big part of this movement has been the influence on the Christian entertainment subculture. Everyone from Catholics to Charismatics can enjoy the same type of music with the same lyrics by the same artist. The rise of commercialized praise music is another part of it. This generates a common experience and unifies a fractured Body in the US.

We have the growth of non-denominational churces. We even have the growth of non-denominational denominations. Many of these are really just church models with prescribed programs that are supposed to work but many times do not because communities are as unique as the individuals that make them up (not to mention if you could just have a universal program mentality, we wouldn’t need the Holy Spirit … and therefore God frustrates programs more than He blesses them since they didn’t come from Him … programs can also make relationship unnecessary, and relationships are very important to God). If you’re unaware of the groups, I know of a few, but the names are not important.

Non-denominational churches actually make me laugh. Not because they are somehow doing something wrong, but because non-denominational churches have become their own denomination. I hear often, “I go to a non-denominational church,” with this snicker in their voice as if they’re therefore better than anyone else who fellowships under another denomination. I don’t think that’s the point. You would think if they were truly non-denominational they would just say, “I go to this church or that church” and not make a big deal about it at all.

Even established denominations have been moving towards a more non-denominational approach. The new thing is to have a very generic name to their fellowship while staying true to the denominational doctrines behind the scenes.

Of course I haven’t even discussed how denominations are unbiblical yet. That’s right. I’ll be bold enough to say that not only are they not in the Bible, but they are against biblical teaching. The Bible makes it clear there is one God, one Spirit, one faith, one Church. Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthian church because of their division is pretty clear. The division included his name, and he didn’t defend himself or his doctrine over Apollos’. He only stressed how they belong to Christ, not to a man or his doctrine.

Denomination means division. My 8th grade Pre-Algebra class can get that while many others do not. There is no division in the Body of Christ. We might try to manufacture them, but they don’t exist.

But despite the biblical teaching against it and the popular shift away from it (in varying ways), many still hold to divisive elements and justify them. They use different excuses. Some actually believe that their denomination has the only correct doctrine, and therefore they are the only true Church. They use different methods to “prove” this, of course. Others say that God is doing something “new” and so therefore if you’re not a part of this new thing He’s doing, then you’re not really a Christian. You just think you are. Others will agree that there is only one Church, but that there needs to be different denominations to serve different types of believers, like a spiritual model of monopolistic competition. Some like this brand or that and since they’re all different, everyone gets served. Others say, “that’s just the way it is,” and I start singing a Bruce Hornsby song in my head … sometimes out loud.

I don’t believe that we, as Christians, need to be against everything. It sends the wrong message. I think that there is so much to offer in the Kingdom, that we need to be FOR something. Instead of being against denominations, we should be pushing for unity. There is blessing in unity. God has designed it that way. But in moving towards an attitude of unity and putting it into practice, what does that look like? What issues does the Body of Christ need to guard against?

First off, we need to guard against a lack of deep biblical teaching. Since it is normally doctrine that divides, the solution is to downplay doctrinal teaching, which generally expresses itself in a lack of biblical knowledge. Sermons are nice, short and have more little stories and jokes than any biblical support. These “feel good” sermons aren’t always bad, but there’s no challenge because they don’t want to offend and then divide. Meanwhile, many are starving for the hard truths and must go elsewhere to find them. There is also a growing population of Christians who have not grown up in church and have no history of biblical teaching to draw upon, which is why many speakers find it easier to refer to a movie than the Bible because more people will identify with the movie.

Second, we need to have foundational standards, based on the scripture, for certain things. Throwing out standards of behavior and the centrality of Christ is not acceptable and will not have the desired affect despite our intentions. We need to make sure that the modern “whatever works for you” mentality doesn’t infect certain things that are clear in scripture.

Third, we need to guard against the idea that we all need to be meeting in the same building. Meeting in different places doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of unity. It can, but it falls on leadership, pastors, to support and encourage one another within that community in order for there to be a sufficient amount of exchange and cooperation. Many times the feeling of unity that you recieve by being under the same roof is manufactured while the deeper relationships and discipleship necessary for spiritual growth is absent.

Fourth, we need to balance out deep biblical teaching with a perception that different doctrines can be an important balance to other extreme doctrines. For instance, if we teach only about the love and mercy of God, we miss the very real aspect of Him that is just and full of wrath. We leave behind the fear of God. But if we only teach about His wrath, that is also an incomplete picture of who God is. Many doctrinal differences can be encouraging instead of divisive. They don’t have to be an either/or as much as a both to some degree. Again, this is not a licence that any doctrine is acceptable, only that as we look at the Bible we must be teachable instead of so dogmatic that we miss what God might be looking to teach us.

Fifth, we need to show more grace to one another. Many are alright with being non-denominational as long as they don’t have to fellowship with those crazy charismatics or Catholics or those cold evangelicals. We may not agree, but there is a degree to which we need to be thankful that the name of Christ is being raised and be free enough in Christ to fellowship with other believers in certain situations.

Sixth, we need to make sure that the Church stays interconnected, both nationally and internationally. You can’t know everyone and everyone can’t be your best friend, but you can make sure that you are held accountable to other ministers and ministries on a local level and connected with other ministries on an international level. With the internet, this has become even more possible than ever before. This is about relationship, of course, not just links on a webpage.

Seventh (and these are all interrelated), we need to learn from and use one another’s ministries instead of thinking we should recreate the wheel everytime. Instead of competing against other ministries, we should be seeking ways to share facilities and other things that are just impractical to replicate and a severe waste of resources that could be better used elsewhere. A sub-point here is the way local ministers need to communicate in such a way and raise up safeguards to keep from “sheep stealing.” I’m waiting and longing to be a part of a community of believers, a city-wide community, that when someone shows up at your door to attend your fellowship because of all the “problems” at their last church, you hold them accountable and make sure that they’ve reconciled with these other believers before leaving. Leaving a fellowship isn’t bad unless you do so without doing it in love and blessing. As the people of God we have no excuse for anything else.

A movement to true unity takes a movement that is of the Spirit and must take priority or it will not get done. Good intentions are not enough. We must be intentional and willing to be a part of the bigger picture instead of believing our little world is all important.

If you’ve made it to the end, sorry for the long discussion about what I’m for instead of against, but I thought it more prudent.

Peace.

Some of you knew this one was coming.

I’ve had people throughout my whole life do one of two things in regards to this topic … if not both. They first of all tell me that in order to continue on in ministry, I really should go to a Bible school and get some training. Many also tell me (these can be different individuals or the same) that they feel “called into the ministry” and so they have to start their Seminary education so they can one day be a “minister.”

I can’t find one example of someone in the Bible whom God called into ministry and then told them to go to a school. Even the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament learned by mentorship and example (people in their family). God never instituted one school in the whole scripture, Old or New. It doesn’t exist.

In fact, the examples we have in the scripture of educated people aren’t very good. Moses and Paul were murderers before God miraculously intervened. The Pharisees and Sadducees routinely challenged Jesus and ultimately conspired to kill Him along with the priests and other religious leaders. Read sometime what Jesus said to the religious leaders of the day and the Jews (very educated people in the scripture specifically). More harsh than anyone else he ever spoke to. He never even spoke to Judas like that.

Why didn’t God send John the Baptist to school? I mean, of anyone in the Bible, God could have trained Him up in the scripture like his father and then John could have been one of the religious leaders who stood up for Jesus when He came. Just think of the possible discussion. “Dad, I’m not going to be a priest like you. God is telling me to go out to the wilderness and eat bugs and just listen to Him until the Messiah comes.”

Dad (remembering the Angel and God shutting his mouth for months): “Whatever God wants, son.”

How about Jesus? This boy who confounded the priests in the Temple itself could have found a scholarship to one of the best schools in the country. He could have been a Pharisee or Sadducee or whatever He wanted.

Of all the twelve, Judas and Matthew were probably the most educated among them, Judas being from Judea and Matthew a tax collector.

From what I can see in the Bible, God trains people a different way. He gives them testing, suffering, persecution and mentors. Welcome to the real school of the Spirit. He sends people to jail (Joseph), makes them a shepherd for forty years (Moses), tells them to wander in the wilderness until He shows them the Promised Land (Abraham), puts them in charge of a bunch of ruffians and criminals while the government hunts you down (David), tells you to marry a prostitute and after she runs off you gotta go and marry her again (Hosea), burns off your lips (Isaiah), gives you a limp (Jacob/Israel), sends you to the wilderness to be fed by unclean birds (John the Baptist), disciples you through another prophet and gives you a double portion only after you are stubborn enough to follow the whole way (Elisha), blinds you first and then you are taken in by Barnabas and discipled by him until you both are ready to be the first Christian missionaries (Saul/Paul), makes you a spiritual son of a great apostle (Timothy), and He allows you to be tempted by the Devil himself after fasting for forty days (His own son, Jesus), or perhaps discipled by the Son of God Himself (the twelve).

There are so many more. That is the pattern.

Does God use the educated? Absolutely. Just as God uses those who used to be fishermen or carpenters or a host of other talents and backgrounds. But just because God uses something doesn’t justify it or make it holy or the rule. God used a jackass to talk to Balaam but it didn’t justify the jackass. Should we make that a rule?

But with the importance we put upon a formal Christian education in order to be a minister, shouldn’t we be able to find it in the Bible? Oh, we have scriptures that we stretch like some of the others, but we have no concrete example or teaching on it. We are told to study to show ourselves approved, but looking at Timothy’s life and his example, do we really believe that Paul meant a seminary education? Not to mention that Timothy was already the main leader of his fellowship. The requirements for bishops and deacons had no mention of any schooling or education. It doesn’t even mention that they should be able to read.

As a teacher, I have no problem with education. In the world we can find honor in it and many practical applications for it. But in the Kingdom it is not how God does things. I have met people from seminaries, pastors and leaders who are real men of God. I’ve also met people from the same seminaries who are shams and charlatans. Did the seminary produce them both? I believe God produces one and pride produces the other.

The more I meditate on this, being a teacher, the more I believe that the importance on Seminary education is just another way the modern American/Westernized Church is completely like the world. You want a job. You go to the best school to get you the best degree that will get you the best job available in that field. I’ve seen many young men full of zeal go to a seminary and I’ve watched that school kill the wild men of God that they were. They left tame and domesticated, more worried about what congregations and denominations look for than what is important to God.

God likes wild men. He can work with wild men. Domesticated Christians are the saddest thing I’ve ever seen. God can’t teach that old dog any new tricks. They don’t believe any new ones exist.

A year and a half ago, when the tsunami hit surrounding the Indian ocean, do you know how many wild animals died? What I remember from the news reports, none. All the domesticated animals died, though. All the animals that had no instinct left and were completely dependent upon another master died. The wild ones were free to go where they wanted and to follow the instinct placed inside of them by their Creator.

You’ve been born again. The slave has died and a new creation born of the Spirit has replaced it. Be wild! Don’t believe that your domestication is actually spirituality. It isn’t. Let them call you ignorant like they did John, Jesus, Peter, and a host of others. Let God prove you. He will.

Peace.