Personal Book Survey

1. What author do you own the most books by? Fiction: Jeffrey Archer. Non-Fiction: Elisabeth Elliot. I was surprised to find I owned so many titles by Watchman Nee and Amy Carmichael.

2. What book do you own the most copies of? The Bible. I also collect hymnals and just counted 37 sitting on my bookshelf. My favorite is a facsimile of the original 1779 “Olney Hymns” by John Newton and William Cowper.

3. Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions? No--I end sentences all the time with prepositions and don't even realize when I do it.

4. What fictional character are you secretly in love with? I have read hundreds of books in my life time but can't recall any characters that I am secretly in love with.

5. What book have you read the most times in your life? The Bible.

6. Favorite book as a ten year old? I loved any book I could get my hands on about the Civil War. If there were pictures, that was even better!

7. What is the worst book you’ve read in the past year? My rule of thumb is if a book doesn't capture my interest in the first 100 pages I will simply stop reading and usually never pick it up again. However, it has now been a couple of years since I last failed to finish a book that I have started reading.

8. What is one of the best books you’ve ever read? I don't know if it was the best but definitely one of the most helpful to me personally was “Walking With God” by John Eldredge. I highly recommend this book.

9. If you could force everyone you know to read one book, what would that book be? Of all the questions, this is the hardest for me to answer. There are just too many good books out there that I would like everyone to read. 

OK...here are some I'd like to "force" on certain people I know: “Love Does” by Bob Goff, “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell, "The Sacred Romance" by Eldredge and Curtis, "Blue Like Jazz" by Don Miller. All of these express for me the essence of what Christianity is all about without all the religion that distracts from Jesus’ teachings.

10. What book would you most like to see made into a movie? I understand William P. Young's "The Shack" is being made into a movie. If done well, I think it could have a profound impact on its viewing audience. Other possibilities would be “Bruchko” by Bruce Olson, or maybe Barbara Kingsolver's "The Poisonwood Bible."

11. What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read? Miguel de Cervantes “Don Quijote de la Mancha” in the original 1615 version for an advanced Spanish class I took in Costa Rica (I understood only about 20% and guessed at the rest!)

12. What is your favorite devotional book? A tie between Oswald Chambers “My Utmost for His Highest” and “Dare to Journey with Henri Nouwen” by Charles Ringma.

13. What is your favorite play? “The Mouse Trap” by Agatha Christie, the longest run of any play in the world. My wife and I saw this classic in London and count the evening as one of our most memorable.

14. Poem? “The World Is Too Much With Us” by William Wordsworth

15. Essay? “On Church Music” by C.S. Lewis.

16. Who is the most overrated writer alive today? The lady who writes all the Harry Potter books.

17. What is your desert island book? The Message.

18. What are you reading right now? “Biblical Foundations of Freedom” by Art Mathias, “Psychology” by David Myers and Nathan DeWall, “The Book of Mysteries” by Jonathan Cahn, and “The Gospels” by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

19. The “Top Ten” books that personally impacted your life? (You don’t have to necessarily agree with everything they write.)

1.     “Love Does” – Bob Goff

2.     “Walking With God” – John Eldredge

3.     “Shadow Of The Almighty” – Elisabeth Elliot

4.     “Houses That Change The World” – Wolfgang Simson

5.     “Blue Like Jazz” – Donald Miller

6.     “Hind’s Feet On High Places” – Hannah Hurnard

7.     “Organic Church” – Neil Cole

8.     “Velvet Elvis” – Rob Bell

9.     “The Sacred Romance” – Brent Curtis and John Eldredge

10. “The Shack” – William Paul Young

[Honorable mentions: “Prayer” by O. Hallesby, “Heaven on Earth” by R. Alan Streett, “Heaven” by Randy Alcorn, “Pagan Christianity” and “Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola, “The Present Future” by Reggie McNeal, “Love Wins” by Rob Bell, “The Shaping Of Things To Come” by Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch—all of these are books that have greatly impacted my thinking.]

20. Five authors who have most influenced your thinking (again, one does not have to agree with everything they write.)

1.     John Eldredge

2.     Philip Yancey

3.     Elisabeth Elliot

4.     Neil Cole

5.     Rob Bell

Honorable mentions: Watchman Nee, Frank Viola, Wolfgang Simson, Tony & Felicity Dale, A.W. Tozer, and Henri Nouwen.

Feel free to copy the questions and fill in your own answers. If you do so, please leave a comment below so we can check out some of your favorite books.

¿Dios está en todo?

La tierra está llena del cielo 

Y cada arbusto común en llamas con Dios: 

Sin embargo, sólo él que ve, quita los zapatos, 

El resto se sientan alrededor de ella, 

Arrancando las moras. 

-Elizabeth Barrett Browning, "Aurora Leigh" VII.821-22 

Pocas líneas capturan tan profundamente el misterio de Dios y sus caminos.

Uno de los regalos más notables que Dios ha dado a la humanidad es la libertad de elegir. Podemos optar por ver el arbusto y agarrar las moras, o ver a Dios ardiendo en la zarza. La elección es nuestra. Cómo percibimos a Dios determinará como interpretamos los arbustos comunes de la vida.

¿Realmente está Dios en cada arbusto común? ¿Está Dios en la taza de café sentado a mi lado, o el portátil sentado en mi escritorio? ¿Existe realmente tal cosa como un celular santo o un clip de papel ungido?  ¿Es eso lo que Browning está tratando de decirnos?

Creo que ella está dando a entender que cada persona elija lo que va a creer  acerca de Dios. Elegimos nuestras respuestas a las cosas que entran en nuestras vidas. Es como la historia de dos prisioneros mirando desde detrás de las rejas - uno ve el barro de la calle y el otro ve estrellas en el cielo.

La vida puede ser vista desde ambas representaciones, barro o estrellas. Podemos ver las cosas desde la perspectiva de Dios, o elegir verlas literalmente como se presenten ante nosotros a través de nuestro cinco sentidos. Todo depende de nuestra percepción de cómo Dios obra en nuestra vida.

Cuando Moisés encontró la zarza ardiente en el desierto lo primero que le asombró era, "aunque el arbusto ardía no se consumía." 

Cuando el Señor vio que había ido a mirar, lo llamó desde la zarza: "¡Moisés! ¡Moisés!" y Moisés dijo: "Aquí estoy." 

Entonces, pues, ¿sigue llamándonos Dios desde los arbustos comunes? Creo que sí. Pero sólo cuando elegimos verlo, oírlo, y lo percibimos en todas las cosas. Nuestra respuesta tiene que ser el mismo que tuvo Moisés, "Aquí estoy, Señor." 

Cuando alguien llega tarde a una cita a la cual hemos esforzado para llegar a tiempo, tenemos la opción de ver un arbusto "encendido de Dios" o un arbusto irritante que sirve solamente para enfadarnos.  Nuestra respuesta común es la frustración y el pensar del tiempo perdido. Pero si en la realidad cada arbusto es uno encendido por Dios, ¿habrá una razón espiritual o importante para que las cosas sean como son?

Oswaldo Chambers lo dice de esta forma,

Todos podemos ver a Dios en las cosas excepcionales, pero requiere de la cultura de la disciplina espiritual para ver a Dios en cada detalle. Nunca permita que la casualidad de la vida sea nada menos que el orden señalado por Dios, y esté listo para descubrir los designios divinos en toda circunstancia.

Elisabeth Elliot, misionera al Ecuador, elabora sobre el Salmo 16:5, "Señor, me has asignado mi porción y mi copa, tú sustentas mi suerte."  

"No conozco de ninguna simplificador para toda la vida. Pase lo que pase todo me viene asignado.

¿El intelecto humano rebela al oír tal cosa? ¿Acaso podemos decir que hay cosas que suceden en nuestra vida que no pertenecen a “mi porción asignada?” ¿Tenemos derecho de decir, esto sí pertenece a mi porción, pero lo otro no?  ¿Existen cosas fuera del control del Todopoderoso?

Cada asignación es medida y controlada para mi bien. Al aceptar la porción dada por Dios las demás opciones se cancelan. Las decisiones se hacen más fáciles, las direcciones más claras, y por lo tanto, mi corazón se tranquiliza." 

Al escoger aceptar la vida tal como nos viene asignada por la mano de un Padre amoroso, de hecho aprendemos la verdad que cada arbusto común de la vida literalmente arde con la presencia de Dios.

Dios está con nosotros en toda situación.
Dios está en nosotros obrando sus propósitos eternos.
Dios está aquí en este mismo momento.
Dios está por nosotros no importa que nos pase en la vida.
Dios nos ama. Nada que hagamos pueda cambiar esta verdad.
Dios asigna mi suerte y porción para mí bien.
Dios hace que todas las cosas me ayuden para bien.
Dios nos cuida y podemos descansar en su presencia.
Dios está en control de cada faceta de mi vida;
nada me suceda sin antes pasar por su permiso soberano.

Is God in Everything?

Earth's crammed with heaven

And every common bush afire with God:

But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,

The rest sit round it, and pluck blackberries.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, "Aurora Leigh" VII.821-22

Few lines capture as profoundly the mystery of God and his ways.

One of the most remarkable gifts God has given mankind is the freedom to choose. We can choose to see God in every common bush, or we can choose to see bushes and pluck their berries. The choice is ours. How we see the common bushes of life determines how we embrace life and God.

Is God really in every common bush? Is he in the coffee cup sitting by my side, or the laptop sitting on my desk? Is there really such a thing as a "holy telephone" or an "anointed paper clip"? Is that what Browning is trying to say?

I believe she is hinting we have the choice about what we choose to believe about God. We choose our responses to the things that come into our lives. It is like the story of two prisoners gazing out from behind bars – one sees mud and the other sees stars. Life can be seen from either perspective: mud or stars. We choose whether to see things from God's perspective or see what literally stands before us. Perspective is everything.

When Moses encountered the burning bush in the wilderness what first amazed him, "though the bush was on fire it did not burn up." 

When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." 

Does God still call us from the common bushes? I believe He does. But only when we choose to see, hear, and perceive Him in all things. Our response has to be the same as Moses, "Here I am, Lord."

When someone is late for an appointment that we have ourselves have made the effort to be on time for, we have the choice to see a bush "afire with God" or a bush to sit round and pluck blackberries (and fume!) Our common response is frustration, loss, and thinking of the wasted time. But if every common bush is afire with God, might there be a spiritual reason or significance for even delayed appointments?

Elisabeth Elliot elaborates on Psalm 16:5, "Lord, You have assigned me my portion and my cup, and have made my lot secure." She comments, "I know of no greater simplifier for all of life. Whatever happens is assigned. Does the intellect balk at that? Can we say there are things that happen to us which do not belong to our lovingly assigned "portion" (This belongs to it, that does not?) Are some things...out of the control of the Almighty? Every assignment is measured and controlled for my eternal good. As I accept the given portion other options are canceled. Decisions become much easier, directions clearer, and hence my heart becomes inexpressibly quieter."

I think the key word in the above wise words is, "...as I accept the given portion..." As we choose to accept life as it comes assigned to us from a loving Father, we indeed learn to see "every common bush afire with God."

ETERNAL TRUTHS TO CLAIM:

God is always with us in every situation.
God is always for us no matter what happens.
God loves us. There is nothing we can do that will change this fact.
God assigns to us our portion and cup—that which is best for our good.
God is here right now.
God cares for us.
God works all things together for our good.
God is in control of every facet of our life; 
nothing happens without first passing through his divine permission.

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?

Ecuadorian Baptist Identity

In Ecuador, what is it that makes a Baptist a Baptist? Is it our traditions and practices brought to us by the first Baptist missionaries who arrived in 1950? Our programs and literature?  Our contextualized understanding of Scriptural mandates and doctrine? Exactly what is it that determines if one is truly an Ecuadorian Baptist, or more identified with some other group of evangelical believers?

I have observed with interest in recent weeks a resurgence amongst many of my Ecuadorian Baptist brethren the expressed need to clearly identify what it is we believe as Baptists. In an evangelical world that is fragmented almost beyond recognition, many are wanting to define positions on a number of contemporary issues, including: church polity, same sex marriage, the church's involvement in social ministries, Christians in the political arena, education, the role of the State within church convictions, Baptist distinctives, role of women in ministry, etc.

One of the earliest attempts to define who Baptists are is the London Baptist Confession 1644/1646. While too long to quote in its entirety, I pulled a few of the articles that caught my attention. As I read this document many of their original convictions mirror my own. After each article are my own comments in italics. Some of my observations are particular to our own context here in Ecuador and not necessarily issues in other parts of the world.

XXXVI.
BEING thus joined, every church hath power given them from Christ, for their wellbeing, to choose among themselves meet persons for elders and deacons, being qualified according to the word, as those which Christ hath appointed in His testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church; and that none have any power to impose either these or any other. Acts 1:23,26,6:3,15:22.25; Rom.12:7,8; 1 Tim.3:2,6.7; 1 Cor. 12:8,28; Heb.13:7,17; 1 Pet.5:1,2,3, 4:15.

"...choose among themselves" seems to be the pattern of those early Baptists who preceded us. The current practice of importing trained professionals from outside the congregation seems foreign to the wording in this article. As is the idea of home-grown plural "elders and deacons" which is in contrast with the more common "Senior Pastor" model which seems to be the norm today.

XXXVII.
THAT the ministers lawfully called, as aforesaid, ought to continue in their calling and place according to God's ordinance, and carefully to feed the flock of God committed to them, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Heb.5:4; John 10:3,4; Acts 20:28,29; Rom.12:7,8; Heb.13:7.17; 1 Pet.5: 1.2,3.

"...ought to continue in their calling and place..." means to me that if they are a school teacher, they are to continue in that profession and not abandon it for the ministry. Our modern idea of having full-time professional church ministers seems out of tune with this earlier confession of Baptist belief and practice.

XXXIX.
BAPTlSM is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper. Matt.28:18,19; John 4:1; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:37.38, 8:36,37,etc.

"...to be dispensed upon persons professing faith..." is the only prerequisite for baptism. In many Baptist contexts, especially in Ecuador, other prerequisites are often added to that of "professing faith"--usually in the insistence that the person requesting baptism be legally married (not living in adultery/fornication) before consideration is given to their profession of faith.

XLI.
THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel. Isa.8:16; Eph.2:7; Matt.28:19; John 4:2; Acts 20:7,11:10; 1 Cor.11:2, 10:16,17; Rom.16:2; Matt.18:17.

The administrator of baptism are disciples. No where in Scripture is baptism tied to a particular church office. Our modern practice (especially overseas where this is an issue) of only ordained, recognized church leaders being the only ones authorized to baptize seems to contradict not only our Baptist forefathers but Scripture itself.

XLII.
CHRIST hath likewise given power to His Church to receive in, and cast out, any member that deserves it; and this power is given to every congregation, and not to one particular person, either member or officer, but in relation to the whole body, in reference to their faith and fellowship. Rom.16:2; Matt.18:17; 1 Cor.5:4,11,13;12:6;2:3; 2 Cor.2:6,7.

Again, what caught my attention is that "power" is in the body of believers, and not in any particular sub-group or special persons like it is in many Baptist churches here in Ecuador (usually the pastor.)

XLVII.
AND although the particular congregations be distinct, and several bodies, every one as a compact and knit city within itself; yet are they all to walk by one rule of truth; so also they (by all means convenient) are to have the counsel and help one of another, if necessity require it, as members of one body, in the common faith, under Christ their head. 1 Cor.4:17, 14:33,36,16:1; Ps.122:3; Eph.2:12,19: Rev.2:1; 1 Tim.3:15, 6:13,14; 1 Cor.4:17; Acts 15:2,3; Song of Sol.8:8.9; 2 Cor.8:1.4, 13:14.

While meeting in various geographic locations around the city, the "several bodies" are to "have the counsel and help one of another..." How I wish we could get back to this basic practice of understanding that we are all one in Christ and in need of one another. We are to be there for one another and not separate ourselves from our brothers in our own mini church kingdoms.

XLV.
Also such to whom God hath given gifts in the church, may and ought to prophecy [viz., teach] according to the proportion of faith, and to teach publicly the word of God, for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of the church. 1 Cor. 14:3, etc.; Rom 12:6; 1 Pet. 4:10, 11; 1 Cor. 12:7; 1 Thess. 5:19, etc.

This is nothing more than direct teaching from Paul out of I Corinthians 14. Yet we have taken away from the people to publicly prophecy/teach and hired out professionals to edify, exhort, and comfort the church.


Comments? Oberservations? Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Bearing fruit in abundance

In Matthew 13:23 Jesus shares Divine insight, "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." 

To be able to bear and bring forth fruit it is absolutely necessary to understand what the Word of God is saying. Once understood, this Word has to be acted upon.

We assume people are understanding just because we have said the right words and they have smiled and nodded their heads. What has taken us a lifetime to understand and grasp, we expect those we are sharing the Gospel to instantly comprehend. Is it really a surprise when they don't?

The reality in many cases is something quite different than we intended. I have seen this over and over again. People tend to hear what they think you are saying, not necessarily what you are saying.

Another aspect of this is our tendency to believe people need lots of information before they can really "get it." Often, little of what I am trying to communicate is getting across. All my words are filtered through their own worldview, experiences, prejudices, upbringing, etc. How nice it would be if there were a way to get inside someone's brain and see what is really being understood!

Our message is also suspect in that our listeners often question or are confused by our motivations. Why are they here? Why are they telling me this? What do they really want out of me? What's in it for me if I accept their message?

Anyway, I think I'll go back and meditate a bit more on Matthew 13. A key missiological feature is the need for people to clearly understand the Gospel message. It is our responsibility to communicate that message clearly.

When our kingdoms get in the way of His Kingdom

Is there a connection between Acts 1:8 and Acts 8:1?

Jesus last words to his disciples before ascending to Heaven were, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

The apostles knew this teaching. They had undoubtedly taught it over and over to the growing Jerusalem church. Yet, only a small percentage of the thousands of believers seemed to be taking Jesus' words seriously. Interestingly enough, not even the apostles themselves seemed to grasp the magnitude of Jesus' words!

When Acts 1:8 begins to take a backseat, we shouldn't be surprised by an Acts 8:1 wake-up call.

Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)

In the midst of all that absorbs our attention:

health
work
family
social media
material possessions
entertainment
church, etc.

...as important as these are, we must remember that Jesus expects his followers to be about being his witnesses not only in each of our Jerusalems, but in Judea, Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth. Jesus loves and cares about those in Somalia, Haiti, Iran, and India as much as he loves us. His focus and love is not only for us, but also on the individuals (people just like us) in the nations. The priority of taking his message of love and salvation to all people groups on the face of the earth is a serious matter with our Lord.

Instead of using Jerusalem as our launching pad to Judea, Samaria, and the nations, we go the opposite direction. We start with our Jerusalem, segment down to our suburb, and from there to our own micro-worlds. Our kingdoms gets confused with His Kingdom.

But one way or another Jesus will make his name known to the nations. We can either willingly obey, or be persecuted and scattered. Both get the job done!

When our personal kingdoms and local Jerusalem consume all our time, energy, and resources, and do so at the expense of the Great Commission; it should not come as a surprise when the Father permits Acts 8:1 measures to get us out of our secure comfortable environments and out into his harvest fields.

How traditions often trump Jesus' teachings

One of my favorite Vance Havner quotes says, "The church is so subnormal that if it ever got back to the New Testament normal it would seem to people to be abnormal." So true! And yet this 'subnormal church' continues to sail along with few daring to ask the difficult question, why.

Why do we do what we do? How have we managed to stray so far from New Testament practice and teaching, yet think we are being Biblical in our way of doing things?

Years ago I discovered a series of free downloadable audio teachings entitled The Tradition of the Elders by Beresford Job at House-Church.org. This series of teachings brought to light many of the perplexing questions that have haunted me over the years. The series is in six parts* (TR1-TR6) and takes a while to listen to, but it is a most enlightening trip through early church history showing how we got from 'there' to where we are today.

It was in this series that I was first seriously introduced to the writings of the early church fathers. I now possess a large quantity of these writings and have spent many a fascinating hour pouring over their words. For me these early church fathers are the key to understanding how we managed in such a short amount of time to shift from the practices and teachings of Christ and the apostles into what we have today.

Take for example, Ignatius the second bishop of Antioch. Here is a direct quote from his epistle to the church in Smyrna written only a few years after John the Apostle died...

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. --The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chap. VIII:22b-25.

The whole concept that the pastor/bishop/elder is God's chosen servant to lead the church, and only the pastor can do certain holy functions does not originate with the teachings of Christ, nor the Apostles, but with bishops (pastors) like Ignatius. It is Ignatius who says that only bishops can baptize and officiate the Lord's Supper, not Jesus or the Apostles. Yet the practice that prevails today is that of Ignatius. His words have been elevated to those of Holy Scripture!

It is Ignatius who opines that bishops/pastors/elders are in separate spiritual classes. His order is clearly...

-God the Father
-followed by Jesus the Son
-then the local bishop
-the presbytery
-the deacons
-the common lay person (you and me)

How does this reconcile with Jesus' own teaching to his disciples in Matthew 20?

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. (26) "It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, (27) and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; (28) just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

To be fair, the Canon of Scripture as we have it today, was not in their possession at the time these and similar words were penned. I don't doubt the good intentions these early church fathers had in writing these kinds of things for the churches of their day. These were difficult days dealing with heresy, persecution, and things we cannot even imagine. There was no Bible to guide them like we have today. What is amazing to me, though, is that these aberrations were not corrected once they did have the complete Canon of Scripture in hand!

Few are aware that many of our church traditions, practices, and commonly accepted teachings we have today do not come from Scripture. Instead, they originate with things taught by the early church fathers, like Ignatius. These traditions have been passed down to us over the centuries. Any one questioning the traditions is suspect. But shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't we judge our traditions and practices by what we find in Scripture?

What are your thoughts?

*If you don't have time to listen to the entire series you might consider starting by fast-forwarding to TR3 and TR4 to get at the heart of the series.

At a "Cross Roads" over "Proof of Heaven"

Two books. Both take the soul out of the body and go places not been to before--the afterlife. One is fiction, the other a true story. In both narratives, the main character goes into a coma and emerges from the experience transformed by what is discovered in the spiritual world that lies beyond. I enjoyed both immensely, and hope you read both books!

There is something within us that draws us to the mysterious, the unknown. I love writers who are able to transport us into other realms where the profound questions of the meaning of life are explored. I relish anything that challenges me to think outside-the-box of my own small world. Two such books, listened to back-to-back, are the audio versions of William Paul Young's second novel Cross Roads and Eben Alexander's personal journey into the afterlife, Proof of Heaven.  The former is Young's long awaited follow-up to his 18-million bestselling novel, "The Shack." Alexander's book is a detailed recounting of what happened to him both physically and spiritually while in a coma for seven days.

Both narratives fall into the category of exploring the mysterious afterlife. Neither author questions whether or not life exists after death; but rather, seek to describe what the afterlife is like. Young, utilizing a fictional story, has greater freedom to explore this "other world" without having to justify every word, scene, and sentence. Alexander's recounting is tougher because what he describes of his experience of heaven is limited by having to share only what he personally saw, heard, felt, and experienced without additions. Add to these limitations, his "proof of heaven" is not distinctly a Christian Heaven, which can be a little disconcerting for someone like myself.

Needless to say, both are thought-provoking and explore the timeless questions about life, where we come from, where we are going, what happens after we die, is God real, and does God really love us individually and personally. I think both succeed in assuring us that Heaven is indeed real, and the afterlife is more real than life as we know it now.

Young and Alexander's writing engage the reader on multiple levels:

• theological--what does the Bible actually say about these things?
• physical--understanding the brain and our physical world what happens on a scientific level
• emotional--the power of our emotions and beliefs that directly affect the lives and choices we make in this life
• spiritual--the soul, the consciousness, our spirits and how all that "fits" inside our body

These four aspects intertwine themselves around two fascinating stories. Both narratives alternate back and forth between the heavenly regions and things as they are back here on earth. They explore choices made here on earth and how these affect what is going on in the "real world" beyond.  If the reader already believes in the afterlife, there is little doubt these two books will only strengthen that hope that lives within, as well as challenge those who might be skeptical.

While I was intrigued by Alexander’s recounting of what happened while he was "dead" for seven days, his experience of heaven was not distinctly Biblical. He even uses different terminology for God, heaven, angels, etc. While there is little doubt Alexander believes in God, what he describes is what one would expect from someone who is not familiar with the Biblical passages and language used in Scripture. He describes in detail meeting God (“the Core”) and learned many things about the universe, including how much we are all loved intimately by God, regardless of our past sins. If you have read Rob Bell's "Love Wins" several of the more controversial concepts he relates in his own exploration of heaven and hell are revisited in these two books.

Alexander didn’t see Jesus but describes in detail the afterlife as being a place of great beauty and peace. There is even an entire chapter entitled, "REAL" where he attempts to describe in human language things incomprehensible.  He likens the difficulty of relating his indescribable experience as if a chimpanze becomes human for one day and then reverts back to being a chimpanze and then trying to express to his fellow chipanzes what he experienced as a human. The language, words, concepts, dimensions are just not there to be able to express the unexressable. I couldn't help but think on Paul's difficulty as he too attempted to describe his own beyond this physical world experience...

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.  (2Co 12:2-4)

I have often wondered if Paul's hearing inexpressible things "that a man is not permitted to tell" was meant only for him because of his pride issues (see the verses immediately following 2-4). But it also might be that we are not permitted to tell because we have not yet been given the vocabulary and understanding of what is beyond. To try and tell it as these authors have done falls short of the whole truth. Thus, any attempts to describe the indescribable might distort or cloud what really awaits us over on the other side.  A partial truth can be more dangerous that an outright lie.  Alexander repeatedly refers to his inability to put into language that which he saw, heard, felt, and experienced. In "Cross Roads" Paul Young is not restricted by language and thus is able to offer fascinating dialogues through the interactions of the main character with the beings he encounters in the other world. If you enjoyed the dialogues of Mack with the Godhead in "The Shack" you'll love "Cross Roads" in that, here too, Young has his main character posing the difficult questions of life, trying to make sense of a senseless world, and doing so with the only One who has the answers.

Anyway, be as it may be, these two books are very thought-provoking and are guaranteed to shake you up and rekindle interest (hope) in the next world that awaits us all.

Taking into account the seasons that precede harvest

We speak of the harvest, but rarely take into account the seasons of plowing, planting, watering, and weeding that precede harvest.  In Kingdom work, too, there are seasons which precede and follow harvest times. Every season has its purpose.

When we find ourselves in one of these pre-harvest seasons we need to be fully engaged in that phase of the harvest cycle. In between harvest cycles, there is little we can do other than pray and wait upon the Lord. Since apparently we don't see anything major happening, we assume nothing is taking place. But God is always at work. We may or may not see or understand what He is up to, but He is active behind the scenes.

Prayer must accompany each phase in the harvest, but all the prayer in the world won´t speed up the process. If we are in the "watering" period it does little good to fret and cry out to God because we still haven't seen fruit from our labors. We have a hard time accepting that prayer doesn't seem to be able to accelerate or change the planting cycle!

We want Kingdom matters to operate on our time schedule and according to our expectations. When they don't we anguish, pray harder, and make adjustments to the way we are working thinking the fault is with us. If we can just do things better, correct our errors, then we will see the longed for harvest.

Often what we need is to do less and trust God more. He is at work in the invisible world to bring about all of his plans and purposes. In His time he will bring about His Kingdom.

Does "waiting on the Lord" mean sitting around doing nothing while we wait for the Lord to act?

I personally feel we can do only so much within a given season of the harvest. If it is plowing season, we can plow. If it is planting time, we should be throwing everything we have into getting that seed into the ground. Same goes for watering, weeding, and bringing in the harvest. But beyond doing what we can in the current cycle before us, there isn't a whole lot more we can do. So why stress, fret, and allow ourselves to anguish over things we have no control over?

The following 4-min. "Frog and Toad" story expresses this well.

How do you answer all those tough theological questions?

One of the recurring themes for me as a missionary has been to mediate, or interpret the age old question Pilate made to Jesus, "What is truth?"

Hardly a week goes by that some theological issue, or church practice isn't brought to our attention in hopes we will side with their Biblical viewpoint, rather than the opposing viewpoint.

Some of the more recent issues to come our way: reformed theology in churches, women's roles in ministry, demonic oppression and how to deal with it, is there such a thing as "hearing God" speak outside of what we find in the Bible, are apostles/prophets valid roles today, can women be ordained, can house churches really be legitimate expressions of NT churches, the role of government in telling churches what they can do or not do, can believers be demon possessed (a really BIG issue here), what practices in Pentecostal churches cross the line making them cultish, G-12 practices, what does the Bible say is the "right way" to worship, appropriate evangelism practices, what is biblical discipleship, can a church leader continue in their responsibilities if separated from their spouse, can a person be a practicing Catholic and still a Christian, can a person be a Christian and agree with the theology of certain TV evangelists, etc.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth on all the above matters? Is there a clear black or white answer to every Biblical question?

For me, truth might be likened to a house.

We start by getting to know the house by entering through the main door into the foyer. Here we admire the prints on the walls, hang our coat on the rack, and wipe our feet on the door mat.

Just about the time we think we have figured out the house based on our experience and observations of the foyer, our host leads us into the living room. There we discover even more wonders as we sit in the soft chairs, walk on the plush carpet, and admire the flower arrangements on the coffee table and mantel.

With our visit to the living room we are even more sure we know and understand what the house is all about. We begin to tell our friends about all we have seen and experienced based on the foyer and living room.

One of our friends mentions liking the fried chicken and mashed potatoes he had enjoyed in the dining room.

Fried chicken? Mashed potatoes? Dining room?!?! For one not yet introduced to the dining room and kitchen areas of the house, this sounds suspect from our foyer/living room point of view.

I begin to deny the "truth" of my friends fried chicken experience. I lovingly try to correct him in his error and restore him to the FULL TRUTH as was revealed to me in the foyer and living room parts of the house.

While maybe a flawed illustration of how we understand truth, it does reveal how many of us interpret truth based upon our experience of a portion of the whole.

Back some 25 or so years ago, as a new missionary to Guayaquil, a national friend invited a bunch of us over for a Sunday evening parillada (Bar-B-Que). I was horrified and disappointed that the invitation was for a Sunday evening at 7:00pm. Why? That, of course, was the same time as the Sunday evening church service. What would God think of us having a parillada when we all should be sitting in church? Sunday was the Lord's Day, not a day for parilladas and partying with friends.

I remember sitting in church that Sunday evening totally convinced that I was right and my worldly brothers were wrong for going ahead with the parillada. I had understood the truth of church through my limited exposure as something I had learned in the "foyer." Since the kitchen, patio, and Bar-b-que grill portions had not yet been revealed to me, I was quite certain that my paradigm of church was right, and that my unspiritual brothers were quite immature in their worldly ways. It was up to me to correct their "dining room theology" with my "foyer theology".

Isn't truth an ever-deepening revelation as we allow the Lord to lead us further into his "house of truth?" Just when we think we have finally discovered the truth of one of God's mysteries, He leads us through a new door into another room of the house, revealing yet more wonders which add to our understanding of that truth.

It seems to me a lot of arguing and divisiveness--especially amongst fellow believers--is that we argue our case for truth out of our limited exposure to only a portion of the whole truth. Those who have journeyed through only the foyer and living room think those enjoying fried chicken in the dining room are way out of bounds.

But could it be that the riches of Christ Jesus, the author of all truth, go so much deeper than most of us have experienced to date?

What do your think?

How sincere believers can read the same Bible and yet come to such differing understandings of Scripture

I have always found it intriguing how Christians reading the same Bible can come up with such a wide variety of beliefs and practices about the church. Recently I stumbled upon a very simple explanation of how such a wide variety of beliefs can exist within the Body of Christ through reading Father Zachary J. Hayes explanation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory where he points out that our understanding of the church and church practice hinges upon our overarching view of Scripture itself:

"While the Protestant viewpoint looks for a pure form of doctrine at the beginning of Christian history and sees any deviation from that pure form as a corruption, the Catholic viewpoint sees the beginning more like a seed planted in history. It is the nature of a seed to grow and develop...

Catholic theologians have been inclined to think of the church as a community that grows through history like a living organism. The idea of a seed and the plant emerging from the seed became common metaphors to express this sense of growth. Like a seed, the revelation of God germinates in the ground of history and of human cultures and gives rise to a plant. While this plant is intrinsically related to the seed, it still looks quite different from the original seed, just as an oak tree looks very different from the acorn from which it grew...

In terms of doctrine, this has come to mean that, while the Scriptures have a normative and irreplaceable role to play in the faith life of the church, nevertheless, we ought not to expect any one-to-one relationship between the formultations of the Scriptures and the later formulations of church doctrines..."

--Father Zachary J. Hayes

Wow! If Scripture is merely the initial "seed" from which the plant--the church--matures and grows; then yes, we can have all kinds of beliefs, traditions, and church practices.

But is Scripture meant to be only the initial seed? Is God's Word meant to be only the starting point? Where in Scripture, itself, is the church referred to using a seed metaphor?

This might not seem like a big deal, but to me the seed metaphor has enormous implications. If Scripture is just the starting point where the "seed" begins its journey evolving into a more developed state, then truly everybody is right in ascerting their viewpoint of what has evolved as being "the truth." Indeed each seed will develop into a different plant. Isn't this what we have done with the church? Church is what we want it to be, not what what Scripture says it is. Acts and the Epistles are not blueprints, but are understood as "seeds" that sprout and grow into something different than what we find in the pages of the New Testament.

I believe it is not only the Catholics who have misunderstood the church, her doctrines and practices as deriving themselves from Scripture seeds, but Protestants and Evangelicals as well. All of us tend to justify what it is we believe (or want to believe) by copying/pasting favorite proof texts about the church and making them fit our current ecclesiology.

We have taken the seed found in the Bible, sowed it into the soil of history, nurtured and watered it down through the ages, and think what we have today is an improvement over what Jesus and the apostles left for us. After all, why gather in a simple home to stimulate one another to love and good works, when we can meet in multi-million dollar complexes complete with state-of-the-art technology and artificial waterfalls cascading in the foyer?

So, what is your view of Scripture? Is it a starting point meant to evolve into something else? Or is the intent to give us a more prescriptive set of commands and instructions on how to best make disciples, plant churches, etc.? Or, maybe, something in between?

He made us in order to use us for His purposes, not our own

I am currently re-reading Evelyn Underhill's The Spiritual Life.  It is one of those rare classics that continues to speak as freshly today as it did when first published in 1937. While the book is in reality a series of transcribed radio broadcast talks, it remains a powerful reminder that we belong to Him, and God doesn't have to explain himself to us or make things work according to how we want them to be.

"He made us in order to use us, and use us in the most profitable way; for His purpose, not ours. To live a spiritual life means subordinating all other interests to that single fact.

Sometimes our positions seems to be that of tools; taken up when wanted, used in ways which we had not expected for an object on which our opinion is not asked, and then laid down.

Sometimes we are the currency used in some great operation, of which the purpose is not revealed to us.

Sometimes we are servants, left year in, year out to the same monotonous job.

Sometimes we are conscious fellow-workers with the Perfect, striving to bring the Kingdom in.

But whatever our particular place or job may be, it means the austere conditions of the workshop, not the free-lance activities of the messy but well-meaning amateur; clocking in at the right time and tending the machine in the right way. Sometimes, perhaps, carrying on for years with a machine we do not very well understand and do not enjoy; because it needs doing, and no one else is available. Or accepting the situation quite quietly when a job we felt that we were managing excellently is taken away. Taking responsibility if we are called to it, or just bringing the workers their dinner, cleaning and sharpening the tools. All self-willed choices and obstinacy drained out of what we thought to be our work; so that it becomes more and more God's work in us." (pages 75-76)
 

C.L. Culpepper's audio testimony of the China Shantung Revival

This moving and powerful personal account by Southern Baptist missionary C.L. Culpepper of the Shantung Revival in China in the 1920's (one of the most remarkable mass moving of the Holy Spirit in history) continues to move and convict me each time I listen.

More than ever before, we need to be listening to the voices of these saints of old as they wrestled with personal sin and allowed the fullness of the Spirit of God to do what He so much wants to do--bring revival to his people! If only those of us who are called by His name, "will humble ourselves and pray and seek His face and turn from our wicked ways," then He promises to "hear from heaven, forgive our sin and heal our land."

This testimony is well worth the 50-minutes it will take to listen. Many believe this revival was the catalyst for the house church movement that has flourished in spite of communist persecution for nearly 75 years in China.


Podcast Powered By Podbean

If you aren't familiar with sermonindex.net it is a gold mine of free downloadable audio messages from the likes of A.W. Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill, Ray Steadman, Duncan Campbell, John Piper, David Wilkerson, T. Austin Sparks, and dozens more--even clips by William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army!

Things God cannot stand

Quit your worship charades. I can't stand your trivial religious games: Monthly conferences, weekly Sabbaths, special meetings - meetings, meetings, meetings - I can't stand one more!

Meetings for this, meetings for that. I hate them! You've worn me out! I'm sick of your religion, religion, religion, while you go right on sinning.

When you put on your next prayer-performance, I'll be looking the other way. No matter how long or loud or often you pray, I'll not be listening. And do you know why? Because you've been tearing people to pieces, and your hands are bloody.

Go home and wash up. Clean up your act. Sweep your lives clean of your evildoings so I don't have to look at them any longer. Say no to wrong.

Learn to do good. Work for justice. Help the down-and-out. Stand up for the homeless. Go to bat for the defenseless. Let's Argue This Out!

--God, Isaiah 1: 13-17 (the Message)

When does bad theology get in the way of a person being saved?

Upon seeing an advertisement for an American youth church choir that would be performing in our city, my wife and I decided to attend. We arrived at the largest church venue in the heart of the downtown capital city of the country we were living in at the time and sat towards the back.

The musical performance was first-rate. Our hearts rejoiced at hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed so boldly through these youth. After the musical presentation, the Gospel was openly preached. The words coming out of the mouth of the one preaching were straightforward leaving no doubt, or wiggle room, that the only path to God was solely through faith in Jesus' shed blood on the cross.

"The Church will not save you...your good works will not save you...it is by grace that you are saved by faith...Jesus conquered death by his resurrection from the grave and today stands at the right hand of the Father...open your hearts to Jesus and receive him as your Savior and Lord..."

At the end of the evangelistic message an invitation was given for sinners to stand and publicly profess their faith in Jesus. Dozens stood. Tears were shed. Men and women fell to their knees crying out "Lord, forgive my sin." The youth gathered in small groups with those standing, leading them in the "sinner's prayer." I had a hard time believing the amazing things we were witnessing. Was spiritual awakening finally coming to our city? To this Latin American nation? PTL!

You might be wondering why this revival-like atmosphere would have so captivated me. The reason was that all of the above took place in a Roman Catholic cathedral in the capital city of a Latin American country. The one preaching the Gospel message was a fully-garbed RC bishop!

I was blown out of the water to say the least. Not a single word had been spoken in the two hour evangelistic service that I was not in full agreement with.

But then something very unexpected happened.

In the final two minutes of the service, the priest who had so effectively preached the Gospel of salvation in Christ alone, raised his hands in a benediction and said,

"Hallelujah! God has been so good to us tonight. Let us all stand and join our hands together and give thanks to MARY, THE BLESSED MOTHER OF OUR LORD JESUS, for all she did for us this evening!"

I nearly croaked. How could he possibly believe that Mary had anything at all to do with what the HOLY SPIRIT had done that evening?

That was one of the most memorable services I have ever participated in. And yet, with all due respect to our RC brothers, was marred at the very end by what I consider to be clear theological heresy.

Which of the following theological stances can be considered so false as to actually stand in the way of a person's salvation if adhered to?

-hell is a non-literal place
-Mary is the mother of God
-a person can lose their salvation
-women pastors
-evidence of the indwelling Spirit is speaking in tongues
-the practice of baptizing infants
-only ordained clergy can administer baptism/communion
-any one of dozens of other 2nd and 3rd tier Christian teachings

I like Paul's response to the Romans,

Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions...Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Rom. 14:1,4

It would seem from Paul's perspective that there are brothers (saved brothers) whose theology is "weak" and can even be flawed. But we are to accept these weak brothers and not pass judgment on their inaccurate opinions and beliefs. They do not answer to us for their false/misguided beliefs, but to their master.

Yes, another's theology might be wrong. But when does that bad theology stand in the way of their being saved? Can we still be saved and yet have bad theology on certain matters of faith?

What is the raw essence of the Gospel? The bare minimum that must be believed, or one is lost/condemned? This is something I have thought a lot about over the years. While I have strong evangelical convictions, it doesn't take long being around Christians of other faiths, traditions and denominations before one realizes there are some major theological differences between us!

Peter's response to the listening crowd was, Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Paul and Silas responded to the Philippian jailor's, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Again Paul writes, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved..."

Writing to the Corinthians Paul elaborates on what he considered of FIRST IMPORTANCE For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures... What is of first importance is Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.

So in summary, there can be a lot of bad/false/inaccurate theology out there, but if 1) a person repents and is baptized, 2) believes in the Lord Jesus, 3) confesses with their mouth Jesus as Lord, 4) believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, THEY WILL BE SAVED regardless of any bad theology they might adhere to.

Of course, for me, that is what "making disciples" is all about, "teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded"--making sure we correct any bad/false/inaccurate beliefs as we teach them about Christ. Good theology comes from knowing and obeying Christ and all that He taught us about the Father.

So what do you think is the essence of the Gospel--that which absolutely must be present for a person to be truly saved? I am open to hearing any of your thoughts on the matter.

Kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing

"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse--the whole nation of you--because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." -Malachi 3:8-10

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. -Jesus (Matthew 6:33)

The last book of the Old Testament is emphatic that Jews were robbing God unless they brought the "whole tithe into the storehouse."

The very next books in the Bible, the Gospels (Matthew-John) resound with the theme of THE KINGDOM. Little is said by Jesus about the temple except, "...not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Jesus himself is introduced in the early chapters of the Gospels as traveling throughout Galilee "preaching the good news of the kingdom." The kingdom theme is mentioned nine times in just the first six chapters of the opening book of the New Testament. Jesus himself brings the matter to the forefront with the first command he issues to his disciples, "seek first the kingdom."

While there is no denying that Malachi 3 storehouse giving is biblical for Jews living under the Old Testament Law of Moses, Jesus came preaching the good news of the kingdom, not the superiority of the temple system. The very "storehouse" that the Jews were to bring the "whole tithe" was destroyed in 70 A.D. Since the temple no longer exists in Jerusalem, it seems strange to continue to insist from the Malachi passage that NT believers are robbing God if they no not bring their "whole tithe" into their local church offering plate.

How is it that we are able to twist the Malachi passage into saying something that it does not say?

Like many, I was brought up with the understanding that 10% of what one receives should be given back to the Lord through one's local church as our "tithe." Anything beyond the initial 10% is considered "offering money." We are free to give our offerings to other kingdom causes, but the "tithe" goes intact to one's local church.

But does "storehouse giving" align itself with Jesus command to SEEK FIRST THE KINGDOM? Are local church budgets, programs, buildings, parking lots, salaries, maintenance, etc. synonymous with Kingdom interests?

To me, the Kingdom is the broader sphere of Christ's reign. While storehouse giving can certainly be in line with Paul's admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.

If storehouse tithing gave way to kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The whole structure of church-as-we-know-it would collapse.

Would this be a bad thing?

Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and feed our families. But I am convinced that after the dust settles, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life. We would finally begin to make giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.

Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty. Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.

As a missionary, I see lots of pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the Body of Christ we have all the human and financial resources to meet the needs around us. Yet, very little gets to where it is most needed. Why? Our resources are tied up in in-house use. What would our world look like if churches held back 10% for internal use and gave 90% to Kingdom causes in the world?

The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn't mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.

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.

How church doctrines develop over time

I have always found it intriguing how Christians reading the same Bible can come up with such a wide variety of beliefs and practices about the church. I recently downloaded a free Kindle copy of John Hayward's The Book of Religions Comprising The Views, Creeds, Sentiments, Or Opinions, Of All The Principal Relgious Sects In The World Particularly Of All Christian Denominations In Europe and America To Which Are Added Church and Missionary Statistics Together With Biographical Sketches (obviously with a title like that I wasn't surprised by the 1860 publishing date!)

Of particular interest are the summary chapters of the dozens of varying Christian Denominations existing at the time of Hayward's 1860 writing (not to mention the thousands added since that time!) All claim the Bible as their source of faith and practice. Each draws its ecclesiolgocal distinctions from Scripture and sees everyone else as "missing the mark." How is it that believers professing the Ephesians 4 Pauline creed, "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" can have so many different--and often conflicting--ideas about the church?

After years of bewilderment, I recently stumbled upon a very simple explanation of how such a wide variety of beliefs can exist within the Body of Christ. Much to my surprise it was through reading Father Zachary J. Hayes explanation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory where he points out that our understanding of church doctrine and practice hinges upon our overarching view of Scripture itself:

"While the Protestant viewpoint looks for a pure form of doctrine at the beginning of Christian history and sees any deviation from that pure form as a corruption, the Catholic viewpoint sees the beginning more like a seed planted in history. It is the nature of a seed to grow and develop...

Catholic theologians have been inclined to think of the church as a community that grows through history like a living organism. The idea of a seed and the plant emerging from the seed became common metaphors to express this sense of growth. Like a seed, the revelation of God germinates in the ground of history and of human cultures and gives rise to a plant. While this plant is intrinsically related to the seed, it still looks quite different from the original seed, just as an oak tree looks very different from the acorn from which it grew...

In terms of doctrine, this has come to mean that, while the Scriptures have a normative and irreplaceable role to play in the faith life of the church, nevertheless, we ought not to expect any one-to-one relationship between the formultations of the Scriptures and the later formulations of church doctrines..."

--Father Zachary J. Hayes

Wow! If Scripture is merely the initial "seed" from which the plant--the church--matures and grows; then yes, we can have all kinds of beliefs, traditions, and church practices.

But is Scripture meant to be only the initial seed? Is God's Word meant to be only the starting point? Where in Scripture, itself, is the church referred to using a seed metaphor?

The predominant metaphor used for the church in the New Testament is "the body of Christ" found in multiple references (such as Rom.12:5), the "bride of Christ" in Revelation, "God's household" (Eph.2:19), "chosen race", "royal priesthood", "holy nation", "a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter 2:19), but I do not find the church referred to as something that grows out of a seed.

This might not seem like a big deal, but to me the seed metaphor has enormous implications. If Scripture is just an initial seed that grows and matures into something else down through history (as Hayes describes above) then everybody is right to nurture their "seed" and hopefully mature it into something they are comfortable with. Isn't this what we have done with the church? We have made church into our own image. We see Acts and the Epistles not as blueprints, but as "seeds" that need to be developed into what they were intended to become.

I believe it is not only the Catholics who have misunderstood the church, her doctrines and practices as deriving themselves from Scripture seeds, but Protestants and Evangelicals as well. All of us tend to justify what it is we believe (or want to believe) by copying/pasting favorite proof texts about the church and making them fit our current ecclesiology. We have taken the seed found in the Bible, sowed it into the soil of history, nurtured and watered it down through the ages, and think what we have today is an improvement over what Jesus and the apostles left for us. After all, why gather in a simple home to stimulate one another to love and good works, when we can meet in multi-million dollar complexes complete with state-of-the-art technology and artificial waterfalls cascading in the foyer?

Yes, the kingdom of heaven is referred to as a mustard seed in Matt. 13:31. Faith is likewise referred to a mustard seed in Matt.17:20, and the Gospel itself as "seed sown in a field." But does this give us the right to morph original NT teaching about the church into something that goes far beyond what we find in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles? Wasn't that Jesus primary objection to the Pharisees that they added to the Law of Moses and held people accountable for the additions? Aren't we doing the same thing today with our own church traditions and practices when we elevate them as being equal (or superior) to actual Scriptural teachings?

And that is how church doctrines get developed over time. What do you think?