Showing posts with label ekklesia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ekklesia. Show all posts

Friday, June 24

¿Qué es una iglesia simple?

La iglesia simple es conocido por algunos nombres diferentes:

-la iglesia en casa
-casas de oración
-iglesia orgánica
-casas culto
-la iglesia hogareña

A menudo se pregunta, ¿qué es la diferencia entre grupos pequeños reuniéndose en las casas, células que se reúnen en casas, e iglesias en las casas que también se reúnen en hogares? ¿No son todas la misma cosa?

Rad Zdero, en su libro, Nexus: The World House Church Movement Reader hace una buena explicación sobre las diferencias.
Aunque reconocemos y celebramos la mano de Dios en todos los modelos de hacer iglesia, hay importantes diferencias entre las iglesias tradicionales, celulares, e iglesias en las casas.
Muchos creyentes hoy en día forman parte de los grupos pequeños de sus iglesias. Estos pueden ser estudios Bíblicos, grupos de oración, grupos de apoyo, etc. Sin embargo, los grupos pequeños son utilizados en formas diferentes según el tipo de iglesia. Casi todas las iglesias utilizan a los grupos pequeños de alguna forma u otra. Estos generalmente saben reunirse en los hogares y animan la participación activa de los asistentes. Pero a partir de allí terminan las similaridades.

Las iglesias tradicionales utilizan a los grupos pequeños como una iglesia CON grupos pequeños (a menudo usan equivocadamente el término célula.)

Las iglesias celulares ponen el énfasis de la vida de la iglesia en el grupo pequeño. Usan correctamente el término célula para distinguir entre la reunión del grupo pequeño, y la del grupo grande (celebración) cuando todas las células se reúnen juntas en un solo lugar. Una iglesia celular es una sola iglesia DE grupos pequeños.

Una red de iglesias en casa entiende que cada iglesia en casa es una iglesia completa y autónoma en si misma. O sea la iglesia ES el grupo pequeño. Una iglesia en casa es una iglesia en todo sentido y hace todo lo que una iglesia tradicional o celular hace.


Tuesday, December 10

What if church is something meant to be less permanent and more fluid?

House churches are not permanent structures. They were never intended to be ongoing "home versions" of church. The idea that "church" is something solid, permanent, or institutional, is more what we have fashioned the church into becoming over the centuries, but not what is described in the book of Acts.

Felicity Dale over at Simply Church once shared ideas from the World House Church Summit held back in November 2009 in New Delhi, India. In particular, I found interesting what was shared in regards to house churches ceasing to multiply when they become permanent structures.

House churches should be neither independent, nor permanent. If they are they will not multiply, but will only have shifted people from the pew to the sofa. Instead, they should be an interdependent network. Each house church is a debriefing center and a sending center that sends people out.

A starfish has no brain or head. If you cut off the arm of a starfish, it will grow into a new starfish. A house church does not require a CEO or a commander. Any of the people in it can multiply it out. The leader is more of a facilitator that cares for the household...

...Church planting is a process. Jesus stayed a few days in Samaria (John 4). Philip, the evangelist, preached the gospel powerfully there and many sick people were healed and baptized (Acts 8:4-13). Then Peter and John (apostles) came and worked with them too (Acts 8:14-25). Different people used their different giftings to see the church there come to maturity (Acts 9:31).

I have to confess that it has taken us 10 years to understand what Felicity shares above. Most of the church planting types I relate to are focused on starting churches. Once we have something up and going, we think, "Great, let's now look around and see who else we might train who might start another one." We have this mindset of permanency. If the house church continues to meet regularly, it is good. If it dissolves after a few months, that is bad. Or is it?

As I reflect upon this, nearly every single church plant connected to our house church network that I can think of, resulted from Christ followers not staying in their home assemblies. Instead, these laborers were discipled, and then sent out to make more disciples. When we make new disciples, churches are planted. The longer we stay together, the more comfortable we get with one another. Soon we want this to go on forever. We want our kids to experience the same we have experienced. We inevitably start organizing, programming, and hiring people to do what we do not have the time to do. Soon, we become the focus of ministry. What we have set into motion begins to define who we are. Before long, 10-20% are the ones engaging in some level of church ministry, while the rest become consumers. Is this what Christ really intended for His Church?

What if the church is something meant to be less permanent, and more fluid? What if we understand Christ's declaration, "I will build my church", to be about his Universal Church (all the saints throughout history), and not the building of local church assemblies? In reality, we are the ones out there trying to build His church. We are the ones trying to do Christ's job for him! Rather than equipping/sending centers; we have organized, programmed, and structured our churches to the point that permanency is what is seen as normal; when in reality, from the viewpoint of Acts, quite abnormal.

Part of the problem is that we have it in our heads that church--whether gathering in a house or a temple--is something solid that must visibly survive if it is to retain its value . In Acts we see the church as more fluid, more about "seeking first the Kingdom"--not the local ekklesia. The above Acts scriptures indicate a church-on-the-move. She is more about being the church in a lost world, and less about going to an organized, programmed, structured place.

I wonder what would happen if there was some way we could reboot our understanding of Jesus and His Church to be more in line with the concept of debriefing and sending centers, and less as permanent structures? Are permanent structures less able to multiply than those which are fluid? What do you think?

Friday, November 15

Have we turned Christianity into a religion?

Once upon a time, Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples of the nations, baptize, and teach them to obey what He had commanded. Jesus instilled within each the full DNA to accomplish the assigned task.

For many years his Church was on course for completing the task. Servants like Peter, Paul, and their companions pointed us in the way. The blueprint clearly found in the pages of the New Testament.

However as the Kingdom grew, so did the desire to control and monitor all that was happening. God has certainly not ceased to work through His Church, but in a real sense, his divine methods and purposes have been substituted for man-made religion, programs, dogmas, denominations, and church-related organizations. Simply stated: we are the divided body of Christ.

Instead of the simple obedience to the commands of Jesus--love the Lord your God, love one another, seek first His kingdom, abide in me, go make disciples, do this in remembrance of me, etc.-- the church has set up different standards for governing what it is Christ said to do. We have turned Christianity into a religion. Complete with hierarchy in our churches, organizations and institutions. We have added rules, regulations, expectations, and interpretations which go way beyond the simple commands of our Lord. Isn't this the same kind of stuff the Pharisees were condemned for by Jesus?

However, all over the world today, there is an emerging breed of believers ready and willing to exchange Institutional Christianity for a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation--a people for God's own possession (I Peter 2:9). A return to the reality that all God's children are empowered to be active participants in the Great Commission and the coming of God's Kingdom upon this earth.

Today we get bogged down in a never-ending debate about who, what, when, and where, and how things can and should be done. Instead of just doing what Christ said to do, we now have formal written documents, clauses, guidelines, interpretations, and definitions for everything. Clutter.

Thom Rainer writes in Simple Church: Returning to God's Process For Making Disciples
"[Jesus] stepped into a complicated and polluted religious scene. It was cluttered with Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians, Zealots, and Essenes. He did not play by their rules. He could not stand their hypocrisy. He preferred spending time with tax collectors and sinners."
Is anything different today? How does Christ react to all we have made of his Church? His Bride!

Why can't we just get back to being the simple first-century, Spirit empowered disciples meeting in homes, by river sides, under Mango trees, spurring one another on to do those things Jesus commanded us to do?

Thursday, October 10

What does Scripture actually say about the church, the Bride of Christ?

One of the most common questions I am asked in church planting training is: at what point do we start taking the new believers to church? This question always frustrates me, but I understand the paradigm struggle many face with house churches being "real churches."

The response I am tempted to give is, "what I hear you asking is at what point do we stop making disciples, and allow them to just start attending church services?" Of course, I bite my tongue before saying this, but it reflects the difficulty we have of understanding the who, what, when, where, and why of the true nature of the New Testament ekklesia.

A large percentage of the legacy church planters we train see house churches as yet another way to reach people for Christ and grow their church. The real goal in people's hearts is, 1) win people to Christ, 2) get them into our church. House fellowships are merely a stepping stone to help grow existing churches.

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart...Scriptures like Acts 2:46 only reinforce the conviction that church took place in the temple. Houses were merely where Jerusalem believers ate and fellowshipped. Back to our original question...

The standard response we generally give is to try and briefly explain our understanding of what Scripture teaches about the church, the Bride of Christ.

1) Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthins 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 2 describe churches as meeting in homes. This was the standard. The norm. Small groups meeting in homes allows not only them, but us, to minister personally to one another. Special church buildings, programs, services, and crowds didn't show up onthe scene until several hundred years later.

2) Ephesians 2:19 teaches we are "fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household..." We are truly family. Families take care of each other, watch out for each other, and some 50+ other "one anothers."

3) Acts 2:42 teaches that continuosly the church engaged in at least four primary activities: 1) devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, 2) to fellowship, 3) to the breaking of bread, and 4) to prayer.

4) I Corinthians 14:26 describes what they were instructed to do when they gathered: "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." Everyone is encouraged to participate and bring something of edification to the gathering. Church is not a spectator sport where only a few perform and the rest are spectators.

5) Hebrews 10:24-25 teaches us the reason for gathering, " and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." The main reasons we are admonished to gather is to, 1) stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 2) encourage one another. If our gatherings do not encourage and motivate us to truly love one another and perform good deeds, then something is out of line and needs to be corrected.

There are many other passages that relate to the who, what, when, where, and why of the church. A few that amplify and describe the above in greater detail are I Corinthians 11-12-13-14, I Peter 2, Acts 2:42-47, and I Timothy 3.

If any existing church is able to closely mirror these values and characteristics, then by all means, feel free to encourage those young disciples to be part of such a church. But if not, we strongly encourage church planters to not try and short-circuit the task by handing them off to a church that is something other than a true NT ekklesia as described in Scripture. In those majority cases it is best to focus on continuing to make disciples, baptize those disciples, meet with those disciples in their homes, and teach those disciples to observe all that CHRIST commanded.

What do you think?

Sunday, May 5

What if...

God-Directed Deviations asks an excellent question,
...what if the singular act of making disciples comprises all of what the church is to be? I don't want to be reductionistic here, but think about it. Jesus told his disciples to "go," "make disciples of all ethnic groups," "teach them to obey all that he commanded," and "baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Within "all that He commanded" is everything the church is supposed to be...
Indeed, what would the nations of the Earth look like today if making disciples was the primary focus of our churches?  I can't help but believe we'd be seeing an unprecedented global harvest on a scale far beyond anything the world has ever seen.

Are we doing what Jesus said to do?

Are we going out to the where the lost live? Or are we planning yet another "come to" activity for ourselves?

Are we making disciples of all ethnic groups? Or are we ministering to the same group of believers who come to our churches?

Are we teaching one another to obey all those things Jesus commanded? Or are we distracted with media events, entertainment, our personal happiness/ambitions, or living the "good life?"

And what did Jesus command? Scanning through the New Testament Gospels one can find a number of things Jesus expects his disciples to do. But since He knew we would have a hard time remembering all these commandments, He did us the favor of summarizing them all in what we know as the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20).

These can be further reduced for easy recall into three objectives:

1) Love God
2) Love Others
3) Make Disciples

What would our cities, towns, and nations look like if those who claim to follow Christ would simply carry out these three commands of Christ? What would happen if the church began to restructure itself in such a way that her singular focus was upon making disciples who love God and love others? And would repeat the cycle of intentionally going out into the world to make other disciples teaching them to love God and others?

Welcome to the missionary call and task!

This 1:59 video expresses well what we attempt to share above...


Saturday, February 9

Is there such a thing as "called to full-time ministry?"


I am getting ready to go to camp tomorrow to speak to 200 youth on the subject of God's call to full-time ministry. Most of those listening to me tomorrow will certainly consider me--the missionary--to be somebody in full-time ministry. But I would argue the point that people like me are actually one step removed from full-time ministry! Most of my day revolves around other believers. Those who actually live, work, and study out in the secular world are potentially in a much better position to engage in meaningful ministry.

Jesus did not call us to remove ourselves from the world, but to be salt and light in the midst of the world.  Many of us so-called "full-time" ministers spend little time in the real world for which Christ died.

I agree with what Dale Losch writes, "The dichotomous notion that religious work is ministry and secular work is not has been very harmful. Speaking of the tragic disconnect between the world and the church, author Dorothy Sayers lamented: How can anyone remain interested in a religion which seems to have no concern with nine-tenths of life!"

What I hope to share tomorrow with the youth is that where they live, work, study, and play is the most strategic place of ministry for any follower of Jesus. We must be intentional in all the relationships the Lord has allowed us to have. And realize that 'making disciples' where we are is our full-time job, but that doesn't mean we have to leave our secular job to do so!

Earlier this week I had coffee with a young man who is a medical student. He "gets this" about as well as anybody I have met in a long time.  During the week he has started a cell group at the university with his fellow medical students, has a house church in his home, and on weekends travels to a neighboring town for a new church plant with the rural poor. In his mind he is a full-time minister of the Gospel. I couldn't agree more.

Just imagine if all of Jesus' followers were actively engaged in making disciples where they lived, worked, studied, and played?  I believe that was the way it was in the first century where every one of Jesus followers was part of his called-out, chosen people, royal priesthood, part of his holy nation, and a people belonging to God, that all of us together might declare the praises of him who called us out of darkness into his wonderful light. (I Peter 2:9)

Wednesday, February 6

Dealing with painful real life issues in house church

A few months ago we were sitting around in a house church gathering when one of our sisters in Christ received a call on her mobile phone from her incoherent drunk husband. Our sister (we'll call her Rosa) was frantic because her two small children were with her husband and he wasn't faring well with them under the influence of the alcohol.

The bad part was Rosa did not know where her husband was living. They were separated. And Rosa could hear her scared children crying in the background. We finally managed to get someone on the line who could give us directions to the house. Rosa asked us to pray for her as she had to go get her children. After doing so, my wife accompanied Rosa to help get the children back to safety.

Upon arrival, Rosa saw that there was another woman at the house with her husband--something she had long suspected--but until that moment, had no actual proof.  She confronted her husband about having an affair and he was forced to confirm the fact.  Rosa's husband then began to get hysterical and told her to "get the _ _  _ out of there!" Rosa and my wife brought the kids back to the house where the church was praying.  Needless to say, they were in bad shape upon arrival. What do you say to someone in their moment of shock, bewilderment, anger, and grief? How do you explain things to those innocent children whose world is being torn apart?

As we gathered around Rosa we asked her how she felt. She opened up and through tears running down her face shared her raw feelings. It wasn't pretty. We, again, prayed over her and affirmed who she is in Christ, and to not let Satan further beat her up with his lies. We tried to express to her how much she is loved by God and us, her family in Christ.

After talking a while, Rosa asked if we thought it was a good idea she talk to her children about all that had happened. Up until then she had been "covering" for her husband and had not told them anything that was really going on. We affirmed her idea saying we thought it would be a good thing.  Mind you, all of this is taking place during the regular "church service."

At that point we gave Rosa a few minutes to collect herself, and then called her children into the living room. Rosa bravely shared for the first time with them the truth about what what had been going on and why dad was no longer living with them.  I thought she did a wonderful job of balancing the pain, while at the same time affirming that both parents loved them, and that they were not at fault for anything that had happened. We gave some time for the children to talk and ask their questions as well. Then all of us huddled around the family for another time of prayer.

Why do I share this? Because real life can be very messy. Pain is real. Believers are not exempt from bad things happening to them. Church is more than a nice service, a challenging message, or great worship. It is being a family together on mission with Christ to redeem a broken and sick world with the Good News.

Real families stick together through the good, bad, and ugly times. Real families stand up and fight for one another and don't abandon each other in the middle of crisis. Real families love one another and treat one another like, well...real family!  This is church. It isn't always pretty, but we are the redeemed, beloved Bride of Christ. The Chosen Ones. The ones He loves, heals, redeems, and restores. We, the church, are His eyes, ears, hands, and feet in today's broken world. We all need encourgement. We all need feedback. We all need one another when going through tough times.

Thank God for the church. I am glad to be part of churches like this one.

Tuesday, December 4

What does a New Testament Church look like?

*David Alan Black, professor of New Testament at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and textual critic, shares his convictions for What Does a New Testament Church Look Like? 

I am convinced that the house church rather than the sanctuary church was the New Testament norm.

I am convinced of the normacy of tentmaking leadership.

I am convinced that the church exists in part to equip all of its members for ministry.

I am convinced that the leadership of the church should be shared for the health of the congregation.

I am convinced that top-down structures of leadership are unquestionably more efficient -- efficient in doing almost everything than equipping, which is the primary task of leadership.

I am convinced that the process of appointing new elders is best done on the basis of recognizing who is already serving as an elder in the church.

I am convinced that any local church that takes seriously Jesus as the Senior Pastor will not permit one man to become the titular head of the church.

I am convinced that the essential qualifications for ministry in the church have little or nothing to do with formal education and everything to do with spiritual maturity.

I am convinced that the church is a multigenerational family, and hence one of the things that makes the church the church is the presence of children, parents, and other adults.

I am convinced that because every local church has all the spiritual gifts it needs to be complete in Christ, believers should be exposed to the full expression of the charisms (grace-gifts) when they gather, in contrast to specialized ministries that center around singularly gifted people.

I am convinced that the local church is the scriptural locus for growing to maturity in Christ, and that no other training agency is absolutely needed.

I am convinced that the local church ought to be the best Bible school going.

I am convinced that Paul's letters were not intended to be studied by ordinands in a theological college but were intended to be read and studied in the midst of the noisy life of the church.

I am convinced that the church is a theocracy directly under its Head (Jesus Christ), and that the will of the Head is not mediated through various levels of church government but comes directly to all His subjects.

I am convinced that the goal of leadership is not to make people dependent upon its leaders but dependent upon the Head. I am convinced that since all believers are "joints" in the body, ministry is every believer's task.

I am convinced that pastor-teachers, as precious gifts of Christ to His church, are to tend the flock of God by both personal care and biblical instruction, equipping God's people for works of service both in the church and in the world.

I am convinced that the role of pastor-teacher is a settled ministry in a local congregation.

I am convinced that leaders should communicate that every part of the body is interrelated to the other parts and indispensable; every member will be appreciated, every charism will be treasured.

I am convinced that the whole church, the community of all the saints together, is the clergy appointed by God for ministry.

In conclusion, the fundamental premise upon which I operate is that each believer in the church needs to be equipped for his or her own ministry both in the church and in the world. If the church is to become what God intended it to be, it must become a ministerium of all who have placed their faith in Christ. The whole people of God must be transformed into a ministering people. Nothing short of this will restore the church to its proper role in the kingdom of God.

-------------------------
*June 1, 2011 David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com Reprinted with permission.

Tuesday, November 20

La definición de la iglesia según el Nuevo Testamento

La iglesia no es nada más, ni nada menos, de lo que uno encuentra en las páginas del Nuevo Testamento.

Lo que vemos allí es:

1-La iglesia es el cuerpo de Cristo. (Efesios 5:29-32)

"...porque somos miembros de su cuerpo, de su carne y de sus huesos."


2-La iglesia es "la familia de Dios." (Efesios 2:19-22)

"Así que ya no sois extranjeros ni advenedizos, sino conciudadanos de los santos, y miembros de la familia de Dios, edificados sobre el fundamento de los apóstoles y profetas, siendo la principal piedra del ángulo Jesucristo mismo..."


3-En esta familia hay una sola cabeza: Cristo Jesús. (Efesios 5:23)

"...Cristo es cabeza de la iglesia, la cual es su cuerpo, y él es su Salvador."


4-El tamaño normal de cada iglesia local era de "2 o 3 unidos en su nombre," o el número de personas que normalmente podrían entrar en una casa. (Mateo 18:20)

"Porque donde están dos o tres congregados en mi nombre, allí estoy yo en medio de ellos..."


5-El lugar donde la iglesia se reunía era en las casas de los creyentes. (Romanos 16:5, 1 Corintios 16:19, Colsenses 4:15, Filemón 2)

"Saludad también a la iglesia de su casa...Las iglesias de Asia os saludan. Aquila y Priscila, con la iglesia que está en su casa...Saludad a los hermanos que están en Laodicea, y a Ninfas y a la iglesia que está en su casa...y a Arquipo nuestro compañero de milicia, y a la iglesia que está en tu casa..."


6-Estas familias que se reunían en las casas se caracterizaban por su perseverancia en la doctrina de los apostoles, el partimiento de pan, la comunión y en las oraciones. (Hechos 2:42)

"Y perseveraban en la doctrina de los apóstoles, en la comunión unos con otros, en el partimiento del pan y en las oraciones."

[Por unos pocos años, hasta la destrucción del templo en el año 70, la iglesia en Jerusalén aparentemente también seguía con las costumbres judáicas de la Ley de Moisés, junto con sus sacrificios, y su sistema religioso sacerdotal. Esto era una excepción y no la norma para las demás iglesias que encontramos en el Nuevo Testamento.]


7-El propósito de reunirse era para estimular y exhortar el uno al otro al amor y a las buenas obras. (Hebreos 10:24-25)

"Y considerémonos unos a otros para estimularnos al amor y a las buenas obras; no dejando de congregarnos, como algunos tienen por costumbre, sino exhortándonos..."


8-Pablo enseñaba a la iglesia que cada creyente debería venir a la reunión preparado para contribuir algo de edificación para los demás. (1 Corintios 14:26)

"¿Qué hay, pues, hermanos? Cuando os reunís, cada uno de vosotros tiene salmo, tiene doctrina, tiene lengua, tiene revelación, tiene interpretación. Hágase todo para edificación."


9-El acto principal de las reuniones centraba en el comer juntos la cena del Señor. (1 Corintios 11:18-20)

"Pues en primer lugar, cuando os reunís como iglesia, oigo que hay entre vosotros divisiones; y en parte lo creo. Porque es preciso que entre vosotros haya disensiones, para que se hagan manifiestos entre vosotros los que son aprobados. Cuando, pues, os reunís vosotros, esto no es comer la cena del Señor..."


10-La misión de la iglesia fue dada por Cristo Jesús de hacer discípulos a las naciones en Jerusalén, Judea, Samaria y hasta los fines de la tierra. (Mateo 28:18-20 y Hechos 1:8)

"Y Jesús se acercó y les habló diciendo: Toda potestad me es dada en el cielo y en la tierra. Por tanto, id, y haced discípulos a todas las naciones, bautizándolos en el nombre del Padre, y del Hijo, y del Espíritu Santo; enseñándoles que guarden todas las cosas que os he mandado...pero recibiréis poder, cuando haya venido sobre vosotros el Espíritu Santo, y me seréis testigos en Jerusalén, en toda Judea, en Samaria, y hasta lo último de la tierra."

Lo descrito arriba es lo que el Nuevo Testamento dice en cuanto a la iglesia. El quitar o añadir de estas enseñanzas es quitar o añadir de lo que fué enseñado y practicado por Cristo y los Apóstoles.

Pablo dice, "Por esto mismo os he enviado a Timoteo...el cual os recordará mi proceder en Cristo, de la manera que enseño en todas partes y en todas las iglesias."  Pablo no dejaba que las iglesias que él fundaba siguieran sus propios costumbres o que hagan lo que les daba la gana. Había enseñanzas y prácticas bien establecidas y eran iguales para todas las iglesias.

Todos los cambios que tenemos hoy en dia empezaron a comienzos del segundo siglo con la muerte del Apóstol Juan. Las enseñanzas de la iglesia descritas arriba fueron cambiándose poco a poco para acomodar lo que ya se estaba practicando.

A comienzos del tercer siglo con el Emperador Romano Constantino, la Iglesia tomó una forma distinta de la que vemos en las páginas del Nuevo Testamento. Ellos justificaban los cambios al explicar que la Iglesia es como una semilla. Al ser plantada en la tierra de la historia, la semilla muere en su forma original para dejar un árbol creciente con muchas ramas. Lo que encontramos en el Nuevo Testamento es el inicio de la Iglesia (la semilla), pero no es su forma final.

Esta enseñanza de la iglesia no proviene de Jesús, Pablo, ni ninguno de los apóstoles. Pero pocos cuestionan los cambios que se han dado a través de los siglos. Creemos que hemos "mejorado" los patrones dejados por los apóstoles. Justificamos nuestras prácticas extra-bíblicas a igual que lo hacía la Iglesia Católica Romana para poder sobrevivir. El volver a ser la "semilla sencilla" de la iglesia nueva testamentaria sería el fin de la iglesia institucional como la conocemos hoy en dia.

El punto que quiero destacar es que la iglesia tradicional con toda su infraestructura extra-bíblica reconozca la legitimidad bíblica del creciente número de creyentes sinceros que buscan volver a retomar las enseñanzas y prácticas de la iglesia primitiva. La iglesia que no sigue con las enseñanzas descritas arriba es la que debería ser cuestionada ya que ha dejado practicar lo que fue entregado por Jesús y los Apóstoles.

Sunday, October 28

Dealing with sin in the church

Not long ago I received a phone call from one of our house church leaders. With tears and a broken voice they asked to come see us about what they described as a "very serious matter."  One of the actively involved young men in the church was having an affair with one of the older single mothers (also very active in the church.)

While this kind of thing certainly takes place in churches of all sizes, it is very hard to hide when both parties are part of an intimate gathering meeting several times a week. Needless to say, their sin had devastated their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I was asked to come mediate and help the church deal with the issue.

What do you do in these kinds of situations? What do you say? How do you discipline those in error? How do you restore someone who has been caught in sin? What would you do in a similar situation?

Typically sin matters are often swept under the rug. We have enough problems of our own without having to deal with other people's messed up lives. After all, who am I to stick my nose into another's business? I believe this kind of attitude has hurt the Body of Christ. Without accountability, sin runs rampant in our midst. Our Kingdom mission becomes derailed.

But on the other hand, I have learned that it is not so much that people are afraid of confronting, but it is hard to know exactly what to do in these situations. How much authority do we have in the lives of others to tell them what they must do? You can't very well kick them out of the church for their sin. Where would they go? What chance for restoration would any of us have then?

Many times ministry responsibilities are taken away until the guilty parties show fruits of repentance. Often they are forbidden to partake of the Lord's Supper for "x" amount of time. But what restoration value is there in taking these kinds of things away? There doesn't seem to be much of a connection between taking away spiritual privileges and a person truly repenting.

While Matthew 18:15-17 gives instructions for when a brother sins, there is nothing in these verses for what to do to discipline one who confesses to their wrong-doing.  Matthew 18:18 seems to leave it up to us to decide what is best and states, "whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

So here is what we ended up doing, step-by-step...

On Sunday morning we called the church together. We explained that we had been invited to help the church work their way through the sin that had been committed by two of its members. We read aloud John 8:3-11 of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. Nobody present would be casting any stones at the two, because we were all sinners.

While the young man was present for all that had been shared up to this point, the single mother had not come to the meeting. I explained that unless both parties were present, we really could not deal with the issue. I appointed two ladies to go find the sister. Everyone understood that she was embarrased to come, but that we could not deal with the sin without her being present. The church sat in awkward silence for the 15-minutes it took to find the sister and bring her to the gathering. Most of us spent that time in silent prayer.

Finally the sister came, accompanied by the two sisters who had gone out and found her. We explained again what it was we were doing, and asked her to be part of our gathering as together we sought the Holy Spirit's direction on how to deal with the sin in our midst. She agreed.

I then read aloud, James 5:16 where we are admonished to "confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed." I explained that our intention was healing. We wanted to make right that which was wrong so that all might be healed.

I turned to the brother in question and asked him if he had anything he would like to say or confess to his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who loved him. He did so. For the next ten or so minutes he confessed before the church and the Lord his sin. He did not try to hide or excuse what he had done. While intimate details were not shared, he made clear that he recognized that what he had done was sin. Tears streamed from his eyes. He was repentant and sorry.

Upon hearing his public confession, I asked the sister involved if she would like to say anything. She likewise made a full confession and expressed how sorry she was for what she had done.

After hearing both confess their sin, I asked all the brothers to gather around the fallen brother and pray aloud over him. We then had all the sisters do the same for our sister. Both kneeled in front of the gathered church while they were prayed over.

At the end of this time, I again read aloud, Matthew 18:18 where Jesus gives us the authority to bind and loose in heaven and earth. We declared them forgiven in Jesus Name. They were admonished to cease from their sin and to not be found together unless another brother/sister was present. Both agreed.

At this point, I felt led to ask if there were any others present who might have sin to confess. Much to my amazement, nearly every single person present confessed aloud their sins. Many were embarrasingly personal, yet the humiliation of tearfully confessing publicly one's sin brought genuine healing to the church. The church gathered around each person after their confession and prayed over them offering words of exhortation and counsel as the Spirit directed each to do.

I don't know if we did it the right way or not, but by the time we broke for lunch everyone seemed to be full of the Holy Spirit, cleansed, with smiles on their faces and a renewed hope in the Lord.

What have been some of your experiences in dealing with sin in the church?

Friday, September 16

Where two or three are gathered in his name...

Copyright © 2009 by Galen Currah, Edward Aw and George Patterson
This document may be copied, translated, posted or distributed without permission.

Jesus promised: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matt. 18:20) If you mentor those who multiply new gatherings and those who shepherd them, then you understand the importance of this basic unit of the living Body of Christ on earth. You can help your trainees plan, form and multiply many tiny gatherings as part of a bigger congregation.

What they can do

Little gatherings of two, three or more, prove entire capable of fulfilling many, biblical requirements of an authentic body. However little gatherings may be, they can:

* experience the Presence of Christ
* obey, together, all Jesus’ basic commandments (believe, baptize, love, pray, share, praise, commune, give, make disciples…)
* exercise spiritual gifts (evangelize, prophesy, exhort, teach, show mercy…)
* edify one another with loving interaction, practicing the biblical “one another” commands
* persevere through time, trials and persecution
* reproduce by adding members and forming new gatherings

Other advantages

The littlest of gatherings enjoy certain strengths and advantages that prove difficult for bigger congregations. Consider these:

* quick growth, easily doubling in only a few day’s time
* starting and thriving without budgets, benches, bells, banners
* a married couple worshiping with their children or servants
* easily moving location according to needs or convenience
* quickly learning from mistakes and make needed changes
* providing discipleship for seekers and new believers
* opportunity for new leaders to gain experience
* avoiding being bullied by oppressive laws and hostile authorities

Two or three of whom?

The New Testament provides examples of many small gatherings, some of them consisting, at least temporarily, of two or three individuals. These include one individual sharing with another (a couple from Emmaus), newly-saved households (a Philippian jailor), home-based gatherings (Lydia’s house), apostolic teams (Paul and Silas), those praying for restoration (Matt. 18:19-20), training leaders (Priscilla and Aquila with Apollos). Thus, the two or three may consist of individuals, evangelists, married couples, heads of households, team mates, military personnel, students on campus, friends at coffeehouses, and so forth.

Basic unit of all growth

A silent reality of all social groups, including congregations, missionary bands, house gatherings and discipleship groups, is that they grow mostly in units of two or three. That is, every one or two believers finds another; every one or two couples seeks a third; every one or two shepherds seeks to train up a new one.

Shepherds, missionaries and trainers can enhance groups, both quantitatively in numbers and qualitatively in maturity, by paying attention to this basic pattern. Of course, this is not a matter of mathematical precision, but of simply working together on a micro-level to win folk to Christ and to disciple them in a normal, effective and reproductive way.


1 + 1 = 2


2 + 1 = 3


3 + 1 = 2 + 2


2 + 2 + 1 = 3 + 2


3 + 2 + 1 = 2 + 2 + 2


et cetera

Every believer seeks to win a friend, every couple finds another couple, and every shepherd appoints an apprentice. Next, every two friends win a third, or every two couples seek a third couple, every two shepherds appoint a third. Each of these “triads” seeks another individual, another couple, another shepherd, until they are four and can become two pairs of individuals, two pairs of couples, two pairs of shepherds. Thereafter, every pair, again, seeks another.

A tactic for reproduction

You can help your mentees plan to match every believer or believing couple with another believer or believing couple, for purposes of mutual encouragement. Such matching can happen during cellular or congregational gatherings, or between gatherings. Instruct every pair to pray and ask God to bring them a third believer or couple. The three will then pray and ask God to bring a fourth. When the fourth has come, these will form a new pair of two individuals or two couples who will pray and ask God for a third believer or a third couple.

Each of you mentors should pray and ask God for an apprentice mentor, and the two of you should pray and ask God for another apprentice mentor, then a fourth. Soon you will be two pairs of mentors, praying and asking God for yet another. This will continue until the Lord Jesus be revealed from heaven with power and glory.

Monday, September 12

Legacy church services through simple church eyes

We've been back in the USA for 70 days now. During this time we have had the opportunity of visiting some wonderful Baptist churches here in Texas. Texas Baptists are some of God's most precious saints on the face of the earth! However, after years of being immersed in simple church values and practices, it has become a personal adjustment to re adapt to the way legacy churches operate with their services, programs, practices and structures.

Here are a few observations coming from an "outsider" of going to church as is commonly practiced here in America.

Sunday Morning Sermon. Instead of preaching 30-45 minutes and then everyone going home and promptly forgetting all/most of what has been so conscientiously prepared, why not share a reduced 15-20 minute message and spend the balance of time allowing interaction by the congregation? This personal interaction with the message would bear far more fruit than simply listening to a good message. Depending upon the size of the church and seating layout, this could be done in several different ways:

1) The pastor could end with a few key questions that get at the heart of what he was trying to share. As people begin to respond back to the pastor a dialog could ensue amongst all those present. The pastor could facilitate the discussion as several share their wisdom and understanding from their rich experience.

2) People could be encouraged to break up into small groups and share with one another what they sense God is saying to them through what has been shared through the Word.

3) Ask people to share how they intend on applying what they have learned from the Word. What specific actions is the Spirit of God impressing upon them in response to the message?

4) 10-15 minutes could be spent praying for one another and applying the message within individual situations.

It is strange that week after week so much effort goes into preparing good Biblical messages, only to be concluded with an invitation which usually has nothing to do with what has been preached. Is church primarily about the message preached by the pastor? What happened to the exhortation by the writer of Hebrews, And let us consider one another, to incitement of love and of good works, not forsaking the assembling together of ourselves, as is the custom of some, but exhorting, and by so much more as you see the Day drawing near?


The offering. Instead of passing the plate while instrumental music plays in the background, or a "special" is sung, why not have someone testify how money given is actually impacting lives and making a difference in the Kingdom? For example, have the VBS Director come forward and share how the budgeted $1000 was spent and the impact this effort had on the lives of 200 kids. Share a few stories. Let people hear first hand how their giving is actually helping to make a difference in people's lives. Invite a missionary to share for a few minutes during the offering time what God is doing in their country and how the church's giving to missions is actually impacting Peru or wherever.

Sunday School. Instead of the goal being to get through the week's lesson, why not allow the Spirit of God to take us where He wants to lead us? Sunday School is the closest thing in legacy churches (in my opinion) to New Testament ekklesias--or has the potential of being so. Here we have the chance to really minister to one another through the Word in a smaller group setting. Yet, class after class, I have sensed that what matters is getting through the lesson, not on building up--encouraging--one another in the Lord. Sunday School seems more an intellectual, educational pursuit where we learn something from the Bible passage studied. There is nothing wrong with studying the Bible, but it could be so much more if we would allow the Living God to not only stimulate our intellects, but minister those studied truths into one another's lives.

Singing and praise. Maybe it's just me, but week after week, 70% of what is projected onto the overhead screen are songs I am hearing for the first time. I personally find it frustrating that all the songs are chosen ahead of time by the worship leaders and they are the ones calling all the shots from behind amplified instruments and microphones. My voice is dimmed and unable to compete with the electronic powers that dominate what passes as "worship" to the Lord. I am getting close to thinking that maybe the non-instrumental Church of Christ churches are far closer to the true spirit of worship with their a cappella singing than what passes for today's contemporary worship practices. As I said, maybe it's just me, but this is truly a struggle not being able to interact more with what is sung and hear from others what they are thinking/feeling as they sing to the Lord.

A possible solution? Un-program the worship times. Give worship back to the people. Yes it would be messy at first and some would not like it--it would be awkward--but after a few weeks of adjustment, worship would gradually return to being worship instead of what, seems to me, a programmed performance where we follow along with whatever is fed to us from up front.

Prayer.
Probably the most striking thing I have noticed after years of being away from legacy churches is the almost non-existent place of prayer in the gatherings of believers. Prayer is used more as a way to begin and close meetings, but I have seen little real praying when believers gather. Singing praise and worship songs is certainly a way of addressing our Lord, but there are so many other aspects of our communion with God that are going unaddressed in our gatherings: prayers of repentance/confession, prayers of united intercession and supplication, prayers for laborers (Lk. 10:2), prayers for wisdom/guidance/discernment, spiritual warfare, prayers for healing and for the sick, prayers for those who do not know the Lord, etc.

I suspect the reason prayer is downplayed is that prayer takes time. Maybe the problem is we have to cram everything in between 11am-12noon. There simply isn't time for prayer if we are going to sing for 20-minutes and listen to a 30-minute message. But then, is it any wonder we have such little spiritual power in our midst? Maybe we should reschedule church on Sundays from, say, 5-8pm to give us adequate time to deal with truly being the Body of Christ and all that implies.

So, what are some of your thoughts? How can we be the church, be God's people; instead of going to church and doing church?

Wednesday, July 13

La iglesia que encontramos en el Nuevo Testamento

La iglesia no es nada más, ni nada menos, de lo que encontramos en las páginas del Nuevo Testamento.

Lo que encontramos allí es:

1-La iglesia es el cuerpo de Cristo. (Efesios 5:29-32)

"...porque somos miembros de su cuerpo, de su carne y de sus huesos."


2-La iglesia es "la familia de Dios." (Efesios 2:19-22)

"Así que ya no sois extranjeros ni advenedizos, sino conciudadanos de los santos, y miembros de la familia de Dios, edificados sobre el fundamento de los apóstoles y profetas, siendo la principal piedra del ángulo Jesucristo mismo..."


3-En esta familia hay una sola cabeza: Cristo Jesús. (Efesios 5:23)

"...Cristo es cabeza de la iglesia, la cual es su cuerpo, y él es su Salvador."


4-El tamaño normal de esta iglesia era de "2 o 3 unidos en su nombre," o el número de personas que normalmente podrían congregarse en una casa. (Mateo 18:20)

"Porque donde están dos o tres congregados en mi nombre, allí estoy yo en medio de ellos..."


5-El lugar donde la iglesia se reunía era en las casas de los creyentes. (Romanos 16:5, 1 Corintios 16:19, Colsenses 4:15, Filemón 2)

"Saludad también a la iglesia de su casa...Las iglesias de Asia os saludan. Aquila y Priscila, con la iglesia que está en su casa...Saludad a los hermanos que están en Laodicea, y a Ninfas y a la iglesia que está en su casa...y a Arquipo nuestro compañero de milicia, y a la iglesia que está en tu casa..."


6-Estas familias que se reunían en las casas se caracterizaban por su perseverancia en la doctrina de los apostoles, el partimiento de pan, la comunión y en las oraciones. (Hechos 2:42)

"Y perseveraban en la doctrina de los apóstoles, en la comunión unos con otros, en el partimiento del pan y en las oraciones."

[Por unos pocos años, hasta la destrucción del templo en el año 70, la iglesia en Jerusalén aparentemente también seguía con las costumbres judáicas de la Ley de Moisés, junto con sus sacrificios, y su sistema religioso sacerdotal. Esto era una excepción y no la norma para las demás iglesias que encontramos en el Nuevo Testamento.]


7-El propósito de reunirse era para estimular y exhortar el uno al otro al amor y a las buenas obras. (Hebreos 10:24-25)

"Y considerémonos unos a otros para estimularnos al amor y a las buenas obras; no dejando de congregarnos, como algunos tienen por costumbre, sino exhortándonos..."


8-Pablo enseñaba a la iglesia que cada creyente debería venir a la reunión preparado para contribuir algo de edificación para los demás. (1 Corintios 14:26)

"¿Qué hay, pues, hermanos? Cuando os reunís, cada uno de vosotros tiene salmo, tiene doctrina, tiene lengua, tiene revelación, tiene interpretación. Hágase todo para edificación."


9-El acto principal de las reuniones centraba en el comer juntos la cena del Señor. (1 Corintios 11:18-20)

"Pues en primer lugar, cuando os reunís como iglesia, oigo que hay entre vosotros divisiones; y en parte lo creo. Porque es preciso que entre vosotros haya disensiones, para que se hagan manifiestos entre vosotros los que son aprobados. Cuando, pues, os reunís vosotros, esto no es comer la cena del Señor..."


10-La misión de la iglesia fue dada por Cristo Jesús de hacer discípulos a las naciones en Jerusalén, Judea, Samaria y hasta los fines de la tierra. (Mateo 28:18-20 y Hechos 1:8)

"Y Jesús se acercó y les habló diciendo: Toda potestad me es dada en el cielo y en la tierra. Por tanto, id, y haced discípulos a todas las naciones, bautizándolos en el nombre del Padre, y del Hijo, y del Espíritu Santo; enseñándoles que guarden todas las cosas que os he mandado...pero recibiréis poder, cuando haya venido sobre vosotros el Espíritu Santo, y me seréis testigos en Jerusalén, en toda Judea, en Samaria, y hasta lo último de la tierra."

Lo descrito arriba es lo que el Nuevo Testamento dice en cuanto a la iglesia. El quitar o añadir de estas enseñanzas es quitar o añadir de lo que fué enseñado y practicado por Cristo y los Apóstoles.

Pablo dice, "Por esto mismo os he enviado a Timoteo...el cual os recordará mi proceder en Cristo, de la manera que enseño en todas partes y en todas las iglesias."  Pablo no dejaba que las iglesias que él fundaba siguieran sus propios costumbres o que hagan lo que les daba la gana. Había enseñanzas y prácticas bien establecidas y eran iguales para todas las iglesias.

Todos los cambios que tenemos hoy en dia empezaron a comienzos del segundo siglo con la muerte del Apóstol Juan. Las enseñanzas de la iglesia descritas arriba fueron cambiándose poco a poco para acomodar lo que ya se estaba practicando.

A comienzos del tercer siglo con el Emperador Romano Constantino, la Iglesia tomó una forma distinta de la que vemos en las páginas del Nuevo Testamento. Ellos justificaban los cambios al explicar que la Iglesia es como una semilla. Al ser plantada en la tierra de la historia, la semilla muere en su forma original para dejar un árbol creciente con muchas ramas. Lo que encontramos en el Nuevo Testamento es el inicio de la Iglesia (la semilla), pero no es su forma final.

Esta enseñanza de la iglesia no proviene de Jesús, Pablo, ni ninguno de los apóstoles. Pero pocos cuestionan los cambios que se han dado a través de los siglos. Creemos que hemos "mejorado" los patrones dejados por los apóstoles. Justificamos nuestras prácticas extra-bíblicas a igual que lo hacía la Iglesia Católica Romana para poder sobrevivir. El volver a ser la "semilla sencilla" de la iglesia nueva testamentaria sería el fin de la iglesia institucional como la conocemos hoy en dia.

El punto que quiero destacar es que la iglesia tradicional con toda su infraestructura extra-bíblica reconozca la legitimidad bíblica del creciente número de creyentes sinceros que buscan volver a retomar las enseñanzas y prácticas de la iglesia primitiva. La iglesia que no sigue con las enseñanzas descritas arriba es la que debería ser cuestionada ya que ha dejado practicar lo que fue entregado por Jesús y los Apóstoles.

Wednesday, May 4

La iglesia simple/organica/misional

¿Qué es la diferencia entre una iglesia en casa/simple/misional/orgánica y la ya conocida iglesia tradicional?


Sunday, May 1

A.P.E.P.T. like their “P’s”

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...Eph. 4:11-12

Favorite words of the above mentioned A.P.E.P.T.

Apostles: plant, plant, plant
Prophets: prophesy, prophesy, prophesy
Evangelists: preach, preach, preach
Pastors: protect, protect, protect
Teachers: prepare, prepare, prepare

Each favorite word by itself is at best, a partial picture of all that is needed. Together the five form a powerful force for carrying out Christ’s purposes for his church.

Sadly, instead of working together as a team, and allowing the various tensions to coexist, the A/P’s are often seen as the “black sheep” of the APEPT family. A/P’s seem to always be stirring up trouble and questioning the status quo. If the P/T’s are doing their best to fill their church pews, A/P’s are trying to empty them. If A/P’s are harping on making disciples of the nations, P/T’s are worried about all the bad doctrine bound to arise from sending “spiritual babes” into battle without adequate preparation. E’s are happy to just be out there preaching the Good News and not all tied up in the complexities going on with the A/P brothers on their left, or the P/T brothers on their right.

While A/P’s are out there pressing the accelerator pedal to the floor, S/T’s have their foot on the brakes! E’s are oblivious to what is going on in the drivers seat, and are only interested in getting the windows down so they can sing, “Jesus saves, Jesus saves...” as they rush past folks standing by the side of the road.

The problem of all five is that we have a hard time accepting anyone who is not one of our own kind. A/P’s, in particular, have been marginalized to almost be considered an “endangered species.” Legitimate A/P’s are the hardest to find or identify within the Body of Christ. A/P’s by nature do not often carry the proper credentials and dislike titles like Pastor, Rev., or Dr. They aren’t usually known for their slick blogs or prolific Tweeting. When they do speak, their voices and actions make us uncomfortable. A lot of their ministry sounds like it is coming out of “left field.” Seldom do A/P’s coincide with the standard “right-wing” S/T church views. In a church not meant to have factions, A/P’s would be considered the left-wing “liberals” of the church–loved and tolerated, yes–but kind of weird, disruptive, and even dangerous for our youth! Of course, E’s in the center can go either way, depending on which side has invited them to preach!

But what is needed? What is missing from this picture? Obviously all five are important or Christ would not have given such a diverse bunch as a “gift” to His church.

I would be the first to confess all who are gifted with one of the APEPT functions/roles need to learn to listen, trust, respect, honor, and work alongside one another. We need to sit down with one another. Talk to one another. Learn from one another. Value our differences. Read books from one another’s different “camps.”

We must be clear that the “he” in verse eleven above refers to Christ, the Supreme Commander in Chief of the Church. It is not just pastors and their staffs who are charged with the responsibilities of caring for, perfecting and training the saints for the work of service. There are supposed to be FIVE cooperating service departments entrusted with duties of perfecting the saints.

Paul further clarifies the aforementioned APEPT chronology in I Corinthians 12:28-29,

And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they?

It is God himself who appoints in his church his own priority order, 1) apostles, 2) prophets, 3) teachers. Obviously missing from the Corinthian list are evangelists and pastors. My own theory is that there is a lot of overlap between apostles and evangelists and Paul joins the two into the apostolic function. Same thing goes for pastors in that their roles often coincide with those of prophesying and teaching.

I personally understand both the Ephesian 5-fold APEPT list and the order found in I Cor.12:28-29 as chronological. It is not that apostles are more important or higher in rank than prophets, but that the order in which each appear is divinely appointed by the Lord himself.

First, apostolic workers are needed to cast vision, plow ground, mobilize, plant seed, preach, water, and be present at the birth of new churches. Prophets accompany apostles every step of the way, speaking to men “for edification and exhortation and consolation.” (I Cor. 14:3)

Prophets confirm and establish that which has been laid down by apostles and “see things” from a spiritual perspective to keep us all in tune with the Spirit’s leading.

Evangelists are also part of this process and often the terms and roles are one and the same with apostles and prophets. Evangelists are especially helpful in making known the message of salvation to those who are have been engaged by the initial work of apostles and prophets.

Once there is a new group of disciples; elders, pastors, shepherds, teachers, and the rest of the I Cor. 12:28-29 list emerge. It is almost like APE's start the ball game, and PT come in and finish up, freeing the APE's to start again elsewhere. But APEPT's are always on the move. About the only static ones would be elders, but that is a subject for another post.

In conclusion, all five roles are important. All five verbs are essential. All five functions co-exist to perfect the saints for the work we have all been called to fulfill in Christ Jesus.

What are some of your thoughts on the above?

Sunday, April 10

20 reasons why we don't see harvest

Felicity Dale shares 15 reasons why we don't see harvest. I have taken the liberty of modifying her original list to reflect our Ecuadorian context, and added a few reasons of our own to the list...

------------------

1. We spend so much time with other believers we don't have time to invest in the lives of those who do not know Jesus.

2. We are afraid of being contaminated by having too much contact with the world.

3. We understand evangelism as a series of events that is carried out on as part of the church calendar rather than the life style of every believer.

4. We pray for many things, but little for lost souls.

5. We don't importune the Lord of the Harvest for laborers.

6. There is little emphasis on training workers to engage in the harvest.

7. Leaders who believe the Great Commission means growing their own church.

8. The belief that "making disciples" means preaching the Gospel and waitng for God to do the work he assigned to us.

9. Fishing in waters where the fish aren't biting, or to change the metaphor...looking to harvest in ground that hasn't been prepared, or where little seed has been planted.

10. Inviting people to come to our church instead of starting new gatherings in the places where they live.

11. Extracting new believers from their communities and spheres of influence and grafting them into our own circles.

12. When we evangelize, we do so haphazardly with whomever, rather than seeking out key "people of peace" as Jesus commanded in Luke 10.

13. We love our own kingdoms more than His Kingdom.

14. Lack of evidence of the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives and ministry.

15. Insisting we work sequentially (pray, plan, procliam, win, teach, baptize, disciple, train, minister...)

16. Connecting everything to the four walls of the church building.

17. Churches keeping 95% or more of their resources for their own local use instead of investing in making disciples of the nations.

18. Leaders who believe filling church pews is the goal, rather than mobilzing believers to the harvest fields.

19. Waiting for someone else to do it. And when nobody else does anything criticize others for their lack of committment with the Lord.

20. Using the excuse that I haven't been called to do that, or the Holy Spirit hasn't given me the kinds of gifts needed to work in the harvest fields.

Sunday, March 27

When do we start taking them to church?

Five days a week our team trains new house church planters. At this writing, we are training more than a 100 people throughout the week in the basics of church planting. Most of these come from evangelical legacy churches with corresponding paradigms.

One of the most common questions asked is: at what point do we start taking the new believers to church? This question always frustrates me, but I understand the paradigm struggle many face with house churches being "real churches."

The response I am tempted to give is, "what I hear you asking is at what point do we stop making disciples, and allow them to just start attending church services?" Of course, I bite my tongue before saying this, but it reflects the difficulty we have of understanding the who, what, when, where, and why of the true nature of the New Testament ekklesia.

A large percentage of the legacy church planters we train see house churches as yet another way to reach people for Christ and grow their church. The real goal in people's hearts is, 1) win people to Christ, 2) get them into our church. House fellowships are merely a stepping stone to help grow existing churches.

Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart...Scriptures like Acts 2:46 only reinforce the conviction that church took place in the temple. Houses were merely where Jerusalem believers ate and fellowshipped. Back to our original question...

The standard response we generally give is to try and briefly explain our understanding of what Scripture teaches about the church, the Bride of Christ.

1) Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthins 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 2 describe churches as meeting in homes. This was the standard. The norm. Small groups meeting in homes allows not only them, but us, to minister personally to one another. Special church buildings, programs, services, and crowds didn't show up onthe scene until several hundred years later.

2) Ephesians 2:19 teaches we are "fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household..." We are truly family. Families take care of each other, watch out for each other, and some 50+ other "one anothers."

3) Acts 2:42 teaches that continuosly the church engaged in at least four primary activities: 1) devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, 2) to fellowship, 3) to the breaking of bread, and 4) to prayer.

4) I Corinthians 14:26 describes what they were instructed to do when they gathered: "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." Everyone is encouraged to participate and bring something of edification to the gathering. Church is not a spectator sport where only a few perform and the rest are spectators.

5) Hebrews 10:24-25 teaches us the reason for gathering, " and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." The main reasons we are admonished to gather is to, 1) stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 2) encourage one another. If our gatherings do not encourage and motivate us to truly love one another and perform good deeds, then something is out of line and needs to be corrected.

There are many other passages that relate to the who, what, when, where, and why of the church. A few that amplify and describe the above in greater detail are I Corinthians 11-12-13-14, I Peter 2, Acts 2:42-47, and I Timothy 3.

If any existing church is able to closely mirror these values and characteristics, then by all means, feel free to encourage those young disciples to be part of such a church. But if not, we strongly encourage church planters to not try and short-circuit the task by handing them off to a church that is something other than a true NT ekklesia as described in Scripture. In those majority cases it is best to focus on continuing to make disciples, baptize those disciples, meet with those disciples in their homes, and teach those disciples to observe all that CHRIST commanded.

What do you think?

Sunday, March 13

Acts--description or prescription?

A few years back I was in the office of a respected denominational pastor here in Ecuador. As I was seeking his advise on a number of church-related matters, he looked me in the eye and said,

"Guido, do you know what your problem is?"

I know I have a lot of faults, but was completely blind-sided by what he said next...

"Your problem is you believe the Book of Acts is still relevant for today. You are trying to make 1st-Century practices the norm. You don't seem to understand that Acts is a historical account of what happened in the early church. But little of what is recorded there applies to us today."

I tried to respond, but he plowed on...

"Acts tells us about the birth of the church, but we have grown far beyond the infancy stage described in its pages. I for one, am not going to lead anyone to go backwards; I want to lead my church forward building upon all that been learned through 2000 years of church history. Why go back to diapers?"

I was left speechless.

Is Acts solely a historical description and non-binding on us today? Or is the record meant as a prescription--a kind of road map Jesus meant we are to follow?

Many take a middle-of-the-road approach. The parts we like we tend to classify as "prescriptive." For example, we like Acts 1:8 where we Gentiles are included in Jesus' Great Commission. As Evangelicals we believe we have the responsibility for taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

The parts we don't experience or practice today, we tend to label as historically non-binding narrative. After all, where in Acts are we commanded to sell our house and lands and lay the proceeds at the Apostles feet? That is something they chose to do, but we don't have to follow their example. Instructive for us? Yes. Obliged to obey? No.

To me, that is the problem of the middle-of-the-road Acts position. We tend to pick and choose which parts we like and will try to put into practice. Those practices that aren't part of our tradition we classify as descriptive narrative--the same way we do with large portions of the Old Testament.

So where do I stand?

I tend to lean towards understanding Acts as standard for us today, in the same way it was for the believers back in the 1st Century. To me the question isn't so much whether Acts is descriptive or prescriptive; rather, why am I not seeking to live up to its higher standards?

So, if I lean towards Acts being prescriptive, why haven't I sold my house and lands and laid them at the apostles feet? Well, for starters, we have no house of our own to sell, nor lands, nor even the car that we drive. So what about other possessions like our furniture, stove, bank accounts or even the floor fan blowing on me as I type this post on my laptop?

This is where we many of us (including myself) come face-to-face with the true god of this age--materialism. I struggle with Shelby Smith Jr.'s thought-provoking quote, "We are always willing to sacrifice that which is not our treasure to hold on to that which is our treasure." What is it in my heart I hold on to? What am I NOT willing to lay at the Jesus feet (or as Acts describes, at the apostles feet?) Whatever THAT is, this is what we tend to categorize as descriptive/narrative portions of Scripture.

Do we really believe like the above pastor that Acts is the Church in diapers? Has today's Church really progressed beyond what we find in the pages of Acts and the Epistles? I will admit that in practice we believe like this pastor. At least he was being honest! But I cannot personally get away from the conviction that Acts and apostolic teaching was given to us not only as historical record, but as a prescription for healthy church expansion and life. To ignore, discredit, or seek to improve upon what we find in Acts/Epistles seems to me to be dangerous ground.

Paul gives strong indication that there were definite standards about the way things were to be done in the churches he had planted. Variations of his words, "...and so I direct in all the churches..." can be found many times in Paul's writings (eg. I Cor.7:17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1, 2 Thes.2:15.)

If there was, and is, a standard of church practice, wouldn't it make sense that what we find in Acts and the instructions given in Paul's letters are standards intended for the church down through the ages? What right do we have to think we have progressed beyond Paul and the Apostles "diaper" instructions for the young churches? Seems to me we would do well to go back to relearn the lessons that apparently have been forgotten by today's advanced, modern church practices!

What are your thoughts? Is Acts and the Epistles to the churches intended as mere descriptions, or prescriptions for the Church of Jesus Christ thoughout the ages?

--------------
For more on this subject, check out Steve Atkerson's Apostolic Traditions: Who Cares?

Sunday, January 30

Carta de Pablo a la Iglesia en Guayaquil

La carta "perdida" de Pablo dirigida a la Iglesia en Guayaquil...

Carta de Pablo
Apóstol de Jesucristo
Ciudad.

*Apreciada Iglesia de Cristo en la ciudad de Guayaquil:

Tú dices que eres cristiano, y te basas en el evangelio, y estás orgulloso de tu Dios. Conoces su voluntad, y el evangelio te enseña a escoger lo mejor.

Estás convencido de que puedes guiar a los ciegos y alumbrar a los que andan en la oscuridad; de que puedes instruir a los ignorantes y orientar a los sencillos, ya que en el evangelio tienes la regla del conocimiento y de la verdad.

Pues bien, si enseñas a otros, ¿por qué no te enseñas a ti mismo?

Si predicas que no se debe robar, ¿por qué robas?

Si dices que no se debe cometer adulterio, ¿por que lo cometes?

Tú que abominas a los ídolos, ¿tienes ídolos en tu propio corazón?

Jactas de tu conocimiento del evangelio, pero deshonras a Dios con tu desobediencia.

Porque como está escrito: “EL NOMBRE DE DIOS ES BLASFEMADO POR CAUSA DE VOSOTROS ENTRE LOS GUAYAQUILEÑOS.”

–*Guayaquileños 2:17-24

*ver similaridad con otra de mis cartas, a la que envié a los Romanos, Capítulo 2, versos 17-24