Category: Church History


Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus, Is it Possible?

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Recommended Books, The Viral Jesus Book, Worldview by rossrohde — 4 Comments
January 21, 2012

The video, Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus, has touched a deep chord or a raw nerve in many people. In the last eleven days it had been watched on YouTube 15,839,759 times (as of Jan. 21, 9:10 AM, Pacific Time). That’s over a million times a day! Not surprisingly it has made some people angry, but to the vast majority, particularly the young, it is speaking what has been on their hearts but they could not, would not, or feared to say. Here is the video for the three of you out there who have not already seen it ;) .

Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus:

What has surprised me is the frustrated, angry or negative response. Here is one of the most creative and eloquent.

Why I Love Religion and Love Jesus:

So what is going on here? Is religion good or bad? It’s not that simple. Part of the problem is a confusion of terms and worldviews, which Mike Morrell does a good job of clarifying in Jesus and Religion’s Relationship Status: It’s Complicated.

So let’s define terms roughly as Jeff Bethke (the author of Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus) is defining it.

Jesus = A loving intimate God who we can know and experience personally. This Jesus is revealed in the Bible.

Religion = All the extra bits that have encrusted themselves around Jesus over the years; the extra-biblical traditions of men.

Is this even important? I believe it is extremely important. The fact that this video is getting a million hits a day ought to tell us something. This has touched a deep chord in our society. I believe it is religion, as defined above, which is keeping the Gospel of Jesus from going viral. That is why I wrote my book, Viral Jesus.

  • If we define religion, as it is defined above, why would anybody want to defend it?
  • Do you believe religion can get in the way of the Gospel?
  • After watching Bethke’s video, are you more into Jesus or religion? Be honest with yourself. Even if you are closer to the “Jesus” side of the equation, did he poke some of your sacred cows?
  • Do you think it is possible that American Evangelicals could be as religious as Catholics, just having a different set of “extra bits?”
  • Do you believe Fr. Pontifex in Why I Love Religion and Love Jesus was wrong (or right) 100% of the time? Is it possible to have a real relationship with Jesus in the midst of a lot of religion? Did you find that you agreed with some of what Fr. Pontifex said? Did that surprise you?
  • Does criticizing religion play into atheism’s hand, as Fr. Pontifex states?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Early Christian Behavior

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Evangelism, Recommended Books, Spiritual Life, The Viral Jesus Book by rossrohde — 7 Comments
November 17, 2011

Fresco from 2 centuries after Mathetes.

How did the early Christians interact with the world around them? We have the book of Acts, which gives us a brief history from Luke’s perspective but beyond that do we have any record of how they viewed their world and how they interacted with it? Actually we do. There is a brief letter called The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus which many scholars believe was written about 130 AD.[1] This is actually a rather brief letter, the entirety of which you can read here. In it a Christian named Mathetes tries to describe who Christians are and how they live to a non-Christian friend named Diognetus. Of particular interest to me is a sentence in Chapter V which I believe shows the Early Churches aversion to Greek philosophy.

The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. I’d like to make a number of observations about this quote which I believe can help us understand how our early brothers thought and how therefore they can be of service to us to get us back on track to what the Church was originally designed to be.

Observation 1: Mathetes is focused on conduct, not speculative thinking. To the early Christians how we lived was much more important that doctrinal speculation. How we lived showed who we were. This was not done by merely reciting doctrinal statements.

Observation 2: Mathetes is responding to the Greek world around him and contrasting Christianity from it. The Greek world around him, at that time, was fascinated with philosophical speculation. Of particular interest was Platonic thought which placed much emphasis on concepts and ideas (called ideals) and placed little or no importance on how we live.

Observation 3: Mathetes is concerned more specifically with following “speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men” and “mere human doctrines.” He is taking a swipe at the humanism of the day, the idea that men can figure things out and determine what truth is. Mathetes’ world was humanistic and so is ours. In fact, the humanism of our day is based philosophically on the humanistic philosophy of Mathetes’ day.

In Diognetus’ world people were obsessed with their own ideas and interpretations. They lived in a world of ideas and doctrine, not the world of life defined by concrete action. Christians of Mathetes’ world were different. They, in essence, said, look at how we live then you will know who we are.

Modern day Christianity has more in common with Diognetus’ world than it does with Mathetes’ world. We argue about doctrine, which, let’s face it, is the speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men.” Many have become “advocates” of “merely human doctrines.” Some are followers of Luther, others are followers of John Calvin, some are Pentecostals while others hold to the doctrine of cessationism. Some hold firmly to Postmillenialism while others are willing to stake their lives on a pre-tribulation rapture. We are behaving exactly like the realities that the early Christians such as Mathetes spoke against. I will discuss these issues more in my upcoming book Viral Jesus: Recovering the Contagious Power of the Gospel, which will be available for purchase on this blog Feb. 7, 2012.

Am I against doctrine? No. Am I against getting wrapped up in arguments about doctrinal ideas rather than living a Spirit controlled life? Absolutely. Our faith should be most easily be defined not by details of our doctrine but by the unique beauty of our lives…which will show what we believe, which, if necessary, could be written down as doctrines. There is a significant difference between those two views; one is deep experiential spirituality, the other is mere Christian humanism. Many people nowadays long for deep experiential spirituality. Almost nobody is searching for Christian humanism. Mathetes understood this, so he chose the first option in Chapter V of his letter, which he called displaying a “wonderful and confessedly striking method of life.” You can read Chapter V in its entirety following the questions.

  • Do you think the average Christian today lives a wonderful and confessedly striking method of life? Why or why not?
  • Is Christian behavior today so markedly different that it shows up statistically such as in divorce rates?
  • In some ways Mathetes said the Christians were just like those around them, in other ways they were markedly different. How would you characterize the ways they were the same and the ways they were different (see below)?
  • How do Christians today try to distinguish themselves from non-Christians?

CHAPTER V — THE MANNERS OF THE CHRISTIANS.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

[1] This is probably an accurate dating. Another theory is that it was written in the early 3rd century. But that seems to be based on evidence from the last two chapters who most believe was a later addition from Hippolytus of Rome.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Fixing vs. Loving

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Evangelism, Spiritual Life, Worldview by rossrohde — 10 Comments
November 2, 2011

Fixing isn't as helpful as loving.

In my last post, Deep Presence, I talked about an experience our simple church had with God in a café patio. What I didn’t mention was that at the same time there was a gay and lesbian group meeting on the patio. In essence they were having the functional equivalent of simple church but focused on gay/lesbian issues. I’m not saying they were looking for God; I have no idea one way or the other. I mean they were meeting together in community to have a meeting that was more than the sum total of its parts.

My friend Lyle (a member of our simple church) and I have discussed on and off what it would look like if our group became more proactive in ministry. What would it look like for our particular group to follow God into ministering to the community around us? In reflecting on this question, I came back to the gay and lesbian group. Here are some observations I’d like to note. It looked like this was a regularly scheduled group. Further, it seems like we took ‘their spot.’ They didn’t say anything, nor did they get huffy, it was just noticeable by some glances. Instead, they very graciously just sat in another location and had a happy, animated conversation. Our group was very ‘evangelical.’ Like it or not, I’m sure they could ‘smell’ our evangelicalism a mile away.

Now, what would it take to minister to that group? Stop for a minute and really think about that question. I asked you to stop because I’m sure most of our first reactions would have created serious problems but done little good toward moving the members of that group toward Jesus. Think about this passage:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I didn’t bring up that passage to note that homosexuals were wicked and won’t inherit the kingdom of God (as it is commonly used in evangelicalism). Nor to note that homosexuality is no less wicked than greed, which homosexuals often bring up with Christians. I brought it up for these two sentences: And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The early Church was filled with ex-homosexuals (and ex-greedy people). The Greek world of that time had a much greater population of homosexuals than does our culture. Yet somehow the Christians found a way to minister Jesus to them to the point that they were washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Further, they felt loved and welcomed among the Christians. Do you think those of us who are current Western evangelicals could pull that off? Did you ever wonder why for the Early Church this was normative and for our expression of Christianity it is as rare as hen’s teeth?

Let’s go back to our church meeting on a café patio next to a gay/lesbian group. What would we have needed to do to minister to them? Let me posit this. Our whole ‘way of being’ would have to focus on loving them and not fixing them. Do you like it when people you don’t know or trust try to fix you? Do you like it when people you do know and trust try to fix you? I’ll bet your answer is no to both questions. Here’s another question. Do you think Jesus’ golden rule applies? You know, the one where he says “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

So how could we have loved them (or love them the next time)? We could have noticed that this was their spot and graciously relinquished it to them. We could have made kind eye contact with them. We could have smiled. We could have asked them if we could get anything for them as we were going to get a refill on our coffee. We could have just focused on looking out for their good…loving them. No fixing. No agenda other than love.

What would God have done, or could God do, with that? I don’t know. But I do know that it is Christian; truly, deeply Christian. It is based on Jesus’ value system of loving others and considering them as more important than ourselves. It is based on inclusive love, not based on merit but grace. It is based on not judging others. And it is based on humility knowing that I’m not really any better than anyone…anyone, else. But I’m in the process of being washed, sanctified and justified. That’s not my doing, its God’s. I’d like to share that with others, but only from a platform of love; not with a wrench in my pocket.

  • Have you ever had someone try to ‘fix’ you? How did you like that? Did it feel more like love or judgment?
  • Are there other types of people, besides gays and lesbians, our Christendom has separated us from?
  • Have you ever approached others with a wrench in your pocket? How’d that go?
  • How did we get to the point where the name “Christian” is more likely to illicit fear of being judged than a strong reputation for loving others?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Tough Situations

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Recommended Books, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — Leave a comment
October 21, 2011

This is an actual FARC guerrilla. My friend saw something like this.

A friend of mine was a missionary in Colombia about 25 years ago during some of the worst violence there. One day his bus was stopped by FARC guerrillas. Everyone was forced off the bus at gunpoint. Since he was a gringo, they immediately wanted to know what he was doing in Colombia and why he was in this rural area. He told them he was a missionary trying to help the people. They immediately stuck a gun in his face and proclaimed their hatred of American missionaries. In the past, FARC had kidnapped and martyred American missionaries, so this was no joke. “Are you really a Christian? Because if you are, we are going to blow the back of your head off.” He was being asked to stick up for his faith by his actions, in a life or death situation.

What would you do in that situation? We all have fantasies of heroically sticking up for our faith. But every day we are given the same test. How are we doing? What test am I talking about? I’m talking about the test that Jesus told us about in Matt. 25:31-46. In this famous parable of the sheep and the goats the difference between sheep, who went to heaven, and goats, who went to hell, was what they did; specifically for “the least of these.” Jesus said we would be judged by our works.

“Wait, you are talking about works salvation.” I can hear your thinking from here. “Haven’t you ever read Eph. 2: 8-9?” [1] Yes, I have. I love that passage. And I have read it in the context of Eph. 2:10 as well. Here’s Eph 2: 1-10 for further context, if you would like. I am talking about salvation by grace, which can be verified by the life we live; the way we act.

That is exactly what Jesus was talking about in the parable of the sheep and the goats. True faith, true belief, will play itself out in the way we live. It will particularly play itself out in the way we treat those who are at the bottom of the pile, what sociologists call the disenfranchised. Agreeing with or even proclaiming correct doctrine won’t get you to heaven. It will just show you know some facts about biblical doctrine. Real faith can be spoken about, but it is lived day by day; not merely talked about. Here is a similar situation that the early Christians experienced in the 2nd Century.[2]

Would you get the card?

So let’s replay my friend’s scenario in Colombia and the same type of scenario that Jesus gave us in the parable of the sheep and the goats. America is taken over by an anti-Christian government. You are pulled before a judge. He says that he has heard rumors that you previously talked about being a Christian. Are you a Christian or not? He will send out the FBI to check not only on what you have said but how you have actually lived out your beliefs. If it is just talk and church attendance you will receive a “get out of jail free card.” On the other hand, if the FBI can track down instances of you actually living your faith by helping others, particularly the weak, in the name of Jesus, and if this is consistent behavior; he is going to throw you in jail and throw away the key. Would you get the get out of jail free card or not?

Don’t complain to me if these parameters seem unfair. You are going to need to talk to Jesus about it. Perhaps you should.

  • Why do you think Jesus set the parameters by what we do instead of what doctrine we agree with?
  • If you ever had a fantasy about being brave under persecution did you ever think you are in the same situation every day?
  • Do you really think these kinds of things can’t ever happen in the West?
  • If you were in the situation the early Christians faced before Pliny the Younger, would you offer a prayer with incense and wine to Trajan’s image and curse Christ? Does your day to day behavior reflect your answer?
[1] Believe me, I’ve had this conversation before and the response is almost always the same from American Evangelicals.

[2] I develop this story of Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan further in my upcoming book Viral Jesus which comes out Feb. 2, 2012. You will be able to buy it here from the blog.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Don’t Forsake Fellowship

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, House Church, Meeting Together, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 7 Comments
July 30, 2011

Is this what Heb. 10:24-25 is talking about?

Hebrews 10:25 is a famous verse. Most of us have it memorized, or at least the phrase “don’t forsake the assembling of ourselves together. However, I suspect the way that verse is commonly used is not really what the writer of Hebrews was trying to communicate.

For most of my Christian life this verse was taken to mean, “you must go to church.” At one point in my formal ministry life I even had my leader tell me, “Any time the doors of the church are open you are expected to be there unless you are traveling for ministry. That’s because the Bible says we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together.” And, it was made clear if he ever found out that the church had a meeting, and I wasn’t there, I would be disciplined.

Really? Is that what that verse is talking about? Was the writer of Hebrews really suggesting that any time the congregation meets we are supposed to be there? Does it really make sense to turn this into a legalism about congregating formally? I don’t think so. Frankly, I think this verse is really much more powerful when understood in its context (historical and textual).

The Historical Context

The Epistle to the Hebrews was probably written in AD 63 or 64. What was the Church like then? Keep in mind that this was just 30+ years after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The Church had no formal congregational leadership, in didn’t even meet in congregations, the way we think of them. The Church was just a loose relationally based network of people. They knew other Christians who knew other Christians. They did tend to meet. Just like college kids who know each other tend to ‘hang out’ together. And, sometimes, they did this in a scheduled way. In fact, it was common to meet on the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection. But that wasn’t a rule, just a tendency. However, Christianity wasn’t conceived by these people as a series of formal meetings, in a house or anywhere else. It was a covenantal life with Jesus and a deep communal, relational life with others who knew Jesus. Oh, and by the way, lets get together on Sunday, but I’ll probably see you sooner. These people tended to be passionate about Jesus and wanted to spread His Kingdom. In fact, it was common for them to be highly focused on those types of issues. Meeting together in a planned way wasn’t high on their priority list.

Textual Context

This verse should be read at least as a whole sentence. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. This is given in the context of continuing to encourage each other to be doing good deeds, but, in doing so, don’t give up meeting together.

I think with these two contexts in mind it is better to understand the passage more like this. Hey guys, it is great you are out turning the world upside down for Jesus, keep up the good work. However, some of you are so intent on doing good deeds for Jesus that you are in danger of drying up spiritually. You need each other, if nothing more, for the encouragement. Don’t stop meeting together, it isn’t good for your soul.

We have strayed so far from this ambiance that we can’t even really conceive to what the writer was getting at. We see Christianity as a series of formal meetings. That was never the intention. We certainly do need to be encouraged toward love and good deeds, because so few Christians nowadays are doing much along these lines at all. We tend to get together quite regularly, but it is just to hear a lecture and see a show (or if house church Christians, to have a nice little meeting in a house). It doesn’t prepare us to be thrust back out into the harvest. We usually don’t even bother to try. Our souls are in danger of drying up, but not for lack of being with other Christians; it’s for lack of really living Christianity as it was designed by God. I think John was right when he told the Ephesians, “You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first (Rev. 2:4-5).”

  • Why do you think Christianity is so different than it was in the first centuries?
  • Have the changes from what we used to be to what we have become made us more effective for God’s purposes?
  • Church is much more complicated, formal and structured that it was at first. Has that made it more spiritual?
  • What would happen if we went back to the way things were at first? Would you enjoy that or hate it? Would it be easier to spread the Kingdom or harder?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Is Organic Church a Fad?

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, House Church, Organic Church, Simple Church, The Viral Jesus Book, Viral Christianity, Worldview by rossrohde — 8 Comments
July 25, 2011

Is organic church only a fad?

Is organic church just the latest fad, in restless Western Christendom, to find a way out of our decline? When I was in Spain, every new idea was greeted with a roll of the eyes. The Spanish church leaders had “had it up to here” with the Americans coming with the next new fad that was going to revolutionize the church. Some missionaries wanted to introduce rock music or at least electric guitars. Others assured them that their para-church organization had the cool technique that would change Spain from resistance to responsiveness. Others were sure that if we could just go against the current, and adopt some of the look and feel of the emergent church, Spanish youth would flock to them. And cells, let’s not forget about cells. If we just have cell groups in our church we can change the situation over night. All of this was met with a shrug of the shoulders, a roll of the eyes and a rather cynical puff of breath…and with good reason.

We Americans have a bad habit of jumping on bandwagons until the next more colorful, exciting bandwagon comes along. We loved the new, the exciting, the trendy. Just give us the new technique in three easy steps, and we are ready to take it to the world…until it doesn’t work as advertized. Then we just look for a bandwagon that will go from zero to sixty miles per hour in 6 seconds flat, or one to which we can just add water and have an instant effective church. In other words, we just look for the next cool technique. My Spanish brethren had us Americans figured out and they were pretty tired of it.

While I am sensitive, and more than a bit in agreement with my Spanish brethren, as well as others around the world who have “had it up to here” with the faddish, the trendy and the instant; I’d like to offer another perspective. What would happen if we stopped looking at changes in the Church in the last 200 years, or so (more particularly in the last 40), as a series of unique changes and looked for the hand of the Holy Spirit in a long term trend? What if cell church didn’t stand alone from emergent church or the rise of para-church organizations? What if all of this was really a step by step process under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In other words, what if the Holy Spirit is moving us in a direction, not skipping around randomly?

Here’s the long term trend I see in Western Christendom’s response to the Holy Spirit (at least some important steps along the way).

  • The 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings (1730-40’s – 1800-1820’s): Beginning of the easing of the clergy’s stranglehold on all ministry and the awakening of the heart to supernatural power in religious experience.
  • The foreign missions movement and the rise of para-church organizations (1780’s to present): re-acknowledgement of our role and responsibility in the Great Commission.
  • The Pentecostal Movement (1906-Present): Recognition of the, importance, intimacy and power of the Holy Spirit.
  • Cell Church (1970’s to present): recognition of the power of small intimate groups.
  • Emergent Church: (1990’s- present) recognition of the need for an expression of Christianity that makes sense in the postmodern world.
  • House Church (1950 [China], 2000 [West]-present): a return to New Testament’s simple ecclesiology and the God given organic design of the Church. This gives an adequate structure to allow for sustained viral movement of the Gospel.[1]

Note how each step builds on the predecessors to for the needed structure, insight, practice or behavior to accomplish what God is asking those involved to do. I don’t believe any of the subsequent steps could have occurred without the previous ones already in place.

As with all movements of God, these are both divine movements and human. Each has its strengths while reflecting human frailty and error. And, as with any time one tries to note historical trends; this is an over simplification. I’ve expressed these in simple steps for clarity; not for pinpoint historical accuracy. Nevertheless, I believe God is at work and we need to take a long term historical perspective and join with Him in what He is doing.

  • Has it ever occurred to you to take a long term perspective of what God may be doing in history?
  • Did you ever notice how any of these historical trends were related to each other?
  • Denominations often tend to get stuck in the forms and practices associated with their foundation. What happens when this happens?
  • Where do you sense God moving you in this overall movement of the Spirit?
[1] This is the premise of my book Viral Jesus: Recapturing the Contagious Power of the Gospel. The book will be released 2/2/12 by Chrisma House.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Where’s Jesus?

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, House Church, Jesus is Lord by rossrohde — Leave a comment
July 14, 2011

Government appointed Bishop Guo

On July 14, 2011 the AP posted an article: China’s Catholic church ordains another bishop: China’s government-backed Catholic church on Thursday ordained a third bishop without the pope’s approval in eight months, despite a Vatican appeal to Chinese leaders….read the rest of the article here.

How can China appoint Catholic Bishops, you may be asking? Well, as far as the Chinese Government is concerned, they severed ties with the Catholic Church in 1951. From that point on, they formed the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. This was a church, Catholic in practice, but which was actually a branch of the Chinese government. The government did exactly the same thing with the Chinese Protestants naming the government controlled Protestant church the Three Self Patriotic Movement. In both of these churches the Chinese government appoints all levels of leadership from Bishops to priests, from Three Self Denominational Leadership to pastors.

Of course from the Traditional Roman Catholic point of view this is absolute heresy; only the pope has the right to appoint bishops. This is no small matter to the Chinese government, either, which views the pope making such decisions as foreign interference in Chinese business. At stake is who controls the Church, who is its head?

Most of the readers of this blog come from a Protestant background (Greetings my followers from the Chinese Government: may Jesus bless you!). About now you are pretty incensed by both the Catholic Church and the Chinese government. How dare the pope, a mere man, think he is in charge of the Church? How dare some secular government try to control the Church? But, frankly, most of the Protestants need to get off their high horse. Who appoints the pastor in Protestant churches? In some denominations they are appointed by the denomination, in others by the elders of the local church, in others by the congregation…in other words by men (or men and women as the case may be). How is that much different than what the Catholics does? So, who is the Head of the Church? Note the change in capitalization.

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work (Eph. 4:15-16)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Eph. 5:23).

What is it called when we say one thing and do another? What then, should it be called when we say that Jesus is the Head of the Church and we actually let men control it? What happens when we espouse Jesus as Lord, as a doctrine, but actually live under the control and rule of men or act as the ruler ourselves? The headship and lordship of Jesus should not be a mere doctrine, it should be a lifestyle. And we shouldn’t criticize the Chinese Communist Government or the Roman Catholic Church until we take a glaring beam out of our own eye. To see how Jesus can actually lead a church and be her Lord read Authority: How Jesus Leads a Church.

What then is my suggestion? Let’s get beam out of our own eye, not merely in what we say, but how we actually live our lives under Christ our Lord. Then we can honestly be concerned for the human abuse of the Church by the Chinese Government, the Catholic Church and the vast majority of Protestants.

  • Why do you think it is so easy to not realize how out of sync our practice is with our espoused doctrine?
  • Now that you know a little bit of the history can you see why the Chinese house church movement got stated?
  • Of the four branches of the Chinese church in 1951 (Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, The Three Self Patriotic Movement, The Roman Catholic Chinese Church and the Chinese House Church Movement [in order of size]) did you know the house church movement was by far he smallest ?
  • Did you know that the Chinese House Church Movement has grown from around 100,000 to probably over 100 million since that time; becoming by far the biggest branch of the Chinese Church?
Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

Apex

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Christendom, Church History, Viral Christianity, Worldview by rossrohde — 9 Comments
July 11, 2011

We thought we were the very pinnacle of Christianity.

When I was a relatively young Christian studying in Bible College, I was led to believe that my expression of Christianity was the apex of all Christian expressions. Some may be asking what “apex” means. I’m using the word according to Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary’s second definition of the word: the highest or culminating point.[1] In other words, I thought that the Christianity I was experiencing at the time was as good as Christianity gets. We had Christianity nailed. The way we did things was the right way. Our doctrine was the right doctrine. Any errors from history had been corrected. And anybody who did things differently were not quite up to snuff; if not completely wrong or even worse, heretical.

We weren’t quite arrogant enough to say it quite like that…I take it back. Yes we were. And even if we didn’t say it, we certainly thought it explicitly, or believed it tacitly. We were certainly critical of everyone else; after all, we were the truest, purest branch of Christianity.  We had read the Scriptures and understood their true meaning.

It never occurred to us that the cultural glasses we were wearing affected the way we read the Scriptures and therefore twisted the meaning of what we were reading. It never occurred to us to ask any questions about this whatsoever. But, in reality, our hermaneutics came from our cultural understanding of how reality worked and how reading texts worked.

Where did that understanding of reality come from? We’d like to think it came from the Bible, but anyone who has honestly studied worldviews (including knowledgeable Christians) would tell us it came from the Western cultural worldview called the Enlightenment. And where did the Enlightenment get its understanding of reality? This is going to be painful, prepare yourself…pagan Greek philosophy. The hermaneutics I was taught in a good, honesty sincere conservative Evangelical seminary, which believed that the Bible was the God breathed Word of God, had more to do with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’s way of seeing things than Jesus’. Ouch. Those who have studied the Enlightenment will even tell you the arrogance described in the first two paragraphs is a tell tale sign of the Enlightenment.

Right now some of you are probably boiling mad. Sorry, I’m not trying to annoy you; but I am willing to ask honest and important if painful questions. If you don’t believe me go do some extensive study on this yourself. Read how the Enlightenment views texts and then honestly think about how you’ve been taught to read and discern the truth of the Bible. Read how the Enlightenment views the world and how you’ve been trained to understand reality. Then find out where these values came from. Don’t trust me on this, go find out for yourself. Just be honest with yourself. If you’ve never done this it might be painful, it was for me.

The Enlightenment itself is only about 250 years old (although its roots do go back to ancient Greek philosophy). The Early Church thought the Bible was the inspired word of God, but they most likely didn’t read the Bible like you do. They certainly didn’t have the same worldview you do. Yet God blessed them. God had a relationship with them and God bore fruit through them. And those Christians that got off track in history; do you think they did that on purpose? How did they get off track? Mostly by trying to conform what the Bible said to their erroneous worldview instead of changing their worldview to match what the Bible said. In other words, they did the same thing we are doing and it created problems. All human philosophy, including the Enlightenment has a basic core value: we can figure it out for ourselves, deep down, we really don’t need God. That’s why Paul told the Colossians: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ (Col. 2:8).

We desperately need the Holy Spirit to lead us to the truth: But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come (Jn. 16:13). Our human hermeneutical schemes might be somewhat helpful, but without the Spirit, we can’t really understand God or his word. We don’t need Philipp Melanchthon, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther or Menno Simons to tell us what the truth is. For that we need the Spirit and a dose of humility. They all saw the truth partially, and so do we. They were all wrong partially, and so are we. Paul himself said: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (I Cor. 13:12). So, let’s have a little humility and a little respect for those who came before us. But, let’s never assume that we or they are the apex of Christianity. We are a bunch of imperfect people who God can still use and desperately loves. In the mean time, let’s trust the Spirit to use us and help us understand what we really need to know.

  • For those of you who have studied the Enlightenment, and how it has affected current Western Christianity, what would you say are two or three things we need to be careful of, or honestly question?
  • Have you ever wondered why our current practice of Christianity doesn’t much look like what we actually read about in the New Testament? Have you ever asked yourself why and what that might mean?
  • Do you think that church practice (ecclesiology) is tied to worldview, doctrine and our view of God? Or, is ecclesiology absolutely neutral and just a matter of personal preference?
  • Do you think things like the Enlightenment and non-biblical ecclesiology could affect our relationship with God? Why or why not?
[1] Definition of Apex, Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apex?show=0&t=1310404166.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

The Problem with Doctrinal Statements

Filed Under: Biblical Meditation, Church History, Jesus is Lord, Our Covenant With God, Spiritual Life by rossrohde — 5 Comments
June 1, 2011

Early document of the Nicene Creed

I’m aware that the title of this blog is going to make some people very uncomfortable. How could there be anything wrong with doctrinal statements? Hasn’t the church been doing doctrinal statements from the very beginning to protect us from heresy? Yes, doctrinal statements have their place. Yes, they can serve the helpful purpose of defining the difference between good doctrine and dangerous doctrine. But there is a subtle danger I’d like to point out that most of us have never really thought about. It is this subtle danger I’d like to address.

I remember way back in the early 1980’s when my wife and I were candidates for a mission organization. We were asked to develop a personal doctrinal statement. This doctrinal statement was then analyzed against the standard doctrinal statement of the mission to see if we were in or out. What’s wrong with that, one might ask? The problem is the assumption that one can determine one’s spiritual life by analysis of a written doctrinal statement. It can’t be done. Yet, that was the tool the being used for that very purpose.

Check, he got that one right.

Here’s how the process was handled.

Me

I believe that God is one and triune made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Mission

Check, he got that one right.

Repeat as often as necessary.

That’s OK, but it says nothing about who I am as a person and how my life is lived. Let me ask you a question, which is more important, the ability to put the correct doctrine of the Holy Spirit on paper, or to be filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit? The way we actually act nowadays one would get the impression that getting the right propositional doctrine on paper is of utmost importance. Here’s what I believe to be of utmost importance: living a life that broadcasts the presence of Jesus Christ. Oh, and by the way, that could possibly be put down on paper in the rare occasion that it becomes necessary.

Let me express the problem in a different way. Do we realize that one can state and agree with every statement of the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds and still go to hell? Such a person could have a deep understanding of the subtle implications of each creedal point, yet live in a way that blackens the name of Jesus to those who don’t know Him.

My point is this. Let’s let our life be our creed. Let’s let the beauty of the presence of the Spirit flow out of our life like rivers of living water. The Early Church understood this. Their only creed was Jesus is Lord. But they also understood that a sign of a mature believer, an elder, one worthy of respect, was that their life was a testimony to those outside the church. In fact, each point of how one determines an elder in I Tim 3: 1:7 was based on how they lived their life. Oh, and by the way, those who were worthy of respect, like elders and deacons were also expected to hold and understand the deep truths of the faith, but that was also to be tested by how they lived.

I think the early Church was on to something; and I think their practice should be emulated. Let’s lead with our life in such a way that the beauty of Jesus is lived out in front of the world; and if necessary, let’s write down on paper what that means.

  • Why do you think we put so much emphasis on written propositional statements nowadays?
  • Do you think every correct doctrine can be lived?
  • What would the Apostle’s Creed look like lived out in a 21st Century suburban life?
  • Why do you think the 4th century[1] Christians put so much attention on written creeds?
[1] The approximate date of the Apostle’s Creed is 390 AD. The Nicene Creed was written in 325 and adapted in 381.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment

The Supermarket Sniff Test

Filed Under: Christendom, Church History, Discipleship, Evangelism, Jesus is Lord, Meeting Together, Simple Church, Spiritual Life, Supernaturalism by rossrohde — 2 Comments
May 16, 2011

Can you do it here?

What defines essential simple church practice and ecclesiology? What differentiates us from our more traditionally based legacy brethren? First, I believe it is that we go back to the Bible as our sole source for ecclesiological practice. Second, we return to the historically accurate understanding of terms such as elder, pastor, apostle etc. But that becomes rather academic and detail prone and open to nitpicky arguments about what exactly does the word ______ mean or how exactly did the Early Church do XY and Z. I’m not against such discussions. A number of my posts have been exactly about these kinds of issues. So obviously I believe we should engage in such thinking and even debate. Nevertheless, I think we need a good simple church practice sniff test. Something that is so simple that we can quickly use it to help us determine if this is a necessary part of our practice or not. I think I’ve come up with this sniff test.

Necessary vs. Acceptable

However, I do want to first differentiate the difference between what is necessary ecclesiological practice and acceptable practice. In a healthy simple church, is it necessary to use a guitar or any musical instrument in worship? No, it’s acceptable by not necessary. Musical practice of any sort isn’t necessary, but often times profitable and enjoyable. So I want to be clear that I’m talking about a test that helps us determine the answer to the following question: is the practice of X indispensible in a simple church? Is it something we should do?

The Supermarket Sniff Test

Here is what I’m proposing for the simple church ecclesiological sniff test. Can you practice it in the cereal aisle of Safeway?[1] Whatever it is that you think needs to be done as church; can you do it in such a public setting?

Let me give a couple of examples of the Safeway sniff test. Should we teach in a simple church? Can you teach someone in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Sure, it’s just done through dialog and doesn’t require a pulpit, an overhead projector, a suit or robe and a loud sonorous voice. Should you pray in a simple church? Can you pray for someone in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Sure. I’d suggest that one were gracious to the casual non-participants pushing their shopping carts, but I’ve prayed for friends on the street or contexts like Safeway. Can you pray for healing in Safeway? Yes, I’ve done it, at least in a department store. It wasn’t flashy and loud but it could be done graciously and discreetly. Can you prophecy at Safeway. Sure. Can you cast out demons in Safeway? Now, were pushing the edge of our test. I’d be very careful about this and make sure that Jesus was directing me to do so. Not out of fear of embarrassment but out of desire to not humiliate the person being ministered to. But, Jesus did this very publically, as did the apostles. And, in the right circumstance, and under the direction of Jesus, I’d do it too.

What this test really does is helps us weed out unnecessary traditional practices that don’t necessarily add anything to the effectiveness of ministry. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, they often hinder effective ministry. Do we need a pulpit to do any effective ministry? No. I really can’t see anything pulpits add to effective ministry. Do we need choir robes? Do we need a sermon? Do we need clergy? Does someone need to be an official clergy to help someone they encountered in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Do they need titles or a seminary education? None of these things are essential, many actually hinder effective ministry.

Let’s just use a seminary education for example. I’ve had to unlearn much of the traditions and practices I learned in seminary to become actually effective in real life ministry outside of the cloistered, unreal vacuum of traditional church ministry. Honestly, most (but not all) of what is taught in seminary is only useful for ministering to people who are tradition bound Christians. Much is actually harmful to ministering to non-Christians and much of what is transferred through seminary trained traditions and practices ends up creating weak, ineffective Christians.  And, the good things I did learn in seminary, I could easily teach in a house church setting to any basically literate person. Much doesn’t even require literacy.

Now do we need Jesus’ power and direction to do ministry in the cereal aisle of Safeway? Yes and again I say yes! It’s absolutely indispensible. Yet, that’s something we’ve become far too used to ministering without. We rely on special buildings, furniture, clothing, titles, positions, degrees, plans, strategies, methodologies, models ad nauseam; but the one thing we really need, the one thing that Jesus made clear we should not do without (see John 15:5); we have treated as not particularly important at all. We are failing the sniff test, and it smells rotten.

  • Think of your typical church experience; could you do most of it at Safeway?
  • The things you couldn’t do at Safeway with their attending paraphernalia and accoutrements; are they necessary for changing your spiritual life for the better?
  • Why do we put so much focus and effort and spend so much money on the non-Safeway friendly things?
  • Does focusing on basic, simple and necessary things; without much of the adornment of the complex, expensive and traditional, really make life changing ministry less effective or practical?
[1] Supermarket chains are extremely regional. Safeway is a common chain in many parts of the United States and England (maybe Canada???). If I were in England I’d say Tesco. In Spain and France I’d say Carrefour and in Guatemala I’d say Paiz.

Did you like this? Share it:
Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.