Little Flock

"Little Flock"

Luke 12:32 Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

“Little Flock”, so interesting that Jesus would call us that. Some say He was just speaking to the disciples that was with Him at that time but the teaching was shared by Luke for us today.

This message Jesus is teaching here is mainly about, “why worry, your Father in heaven promises to take care of you”, but “little flock” spoke to me. Often, I have watched as birds flock together. They stick together. They move as one. In observing them, you would say they are of one mind. The Father has put within them this group-think instinct. Each bird must be thinking and reacting to the birds next to them. They seem to know the intents of the whole flock. They are like a kingdom that perfectly flows together.

In a flock of birds, you do not see one bird leading all the others. They function like a kingdom with no king. God is the unseen king. Relating this to a church, it is like they have no bird pastor or pope.

Matthew 6:26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they.

What would ministry be like if we, as God’s people, could function like a flock of birds? As church members, what if we were so in tune with the Father that we needed no overseer? We would all just know our giftings and would be intently listening for the Holy Spirit to move us in the greater good of the kingdom.

In reality, we are more like a flock of sheep.

Now sheep are accused of being dumb. They walk into danger not even sensing the danger. God has designed them in such a way that they need a shepherd. They need a higher intelligence to keep them in the flock. Sheep do have a worthy gift; they know their shepherd’s voice and they follow. With our human failings, we need an overseer. God has ordained overseers.

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

Let me see what kind of lessons I can learn from this. May be we fit somewhere between the characteristics of birds and sheep.

First, to function as a Christian in the Kingdom, we are to be like sheep having a leader, pastor, priest, etc. Someone who stands responsible to oversee the direction of our lives and lovingly inspires us to function in our giftings. We just do not have that instinct that automatically responds to God.

Psalm 100:3 Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Submission to a loving Father is so important. We are designed to be much more intelligent than birds and sheep. Basically, God told Adam he had dominion over all the other creatures. We are to manage this world were God’s innocent animals freely roam.

Least I get into dominion theology, I really want to explore submission.

Our submission to the Lord is to be neither bird like instinct nor sheepish surrender. God has endowed us with intellect to make choices that develop us into responsible coworkers with Him.

Instinct is a very useful tool for preservation, but God did not plan for us to mindlessly flow through life with no clearly defined responsibilities. God warns us about worry/fear and how it can derail a peaceful kingdom life. We do need a healthy respect and assurance of His care for us like the birds are blessed to have.

Neither are we to mindlessly live life as a sheep being led from pasture to pasture. We do need that sheepish sensitivity to the Shepherd/Father’s voice so we can know why we go from pasture to pasture.

I have learned over these many years of walking with the Lord, submission to His will is where peace and happiness are really found. God wants coworkers that recognize His way is best. This may sound robotic but God’s design for us is not anything like that. We are in no way clones but rather each individually made with distinct characteristics to fulfill distinct task especially assigned to us. We each have a special relationship with our Creator. Therefore, our submission takes on a divine domination that affords us a special relationship with God and His eternal purposes. We are the happiest when we know and flow in His plans.

So, know this, He has especially designed you to have a special roll in His divine design. Church is when we flock together for His pleasure.

Tradition verses Bible Only

Tradition of the Fathers verses Bible Only

I have been studying the 1st thru 3rd century of Christianity so I could get a better understanding of what was happening and being said before the Bible was canonized.

Before I started, I was skeptical about the “tradition of the Fathers” and its spiritual importance on the Church. My mind has been changed to a degree that I can now respect some of their efforts during the hard times they went through. The 1st century Church was rather healthy because it was led by the original apostles, chosen by Jesus. At least I can respect the fact that the tradition of the Fathers helped guide the 2nd through 4th century Church. Also, I blame the tradition of the Fathers for watering down the power of the Gospel.

For these first three centuries of the Church there was great opposition. The Christians lived under the threat of persecution unto death in all sectors of society. The two main forces in culture they faced was heathenism (the prevailing idol religions and philosophies in the day) and the Jewish religion. As we know Jesus was brought forth from God’s special election of the Jewish people. I dare not speak negatively of the Jews, but the Church in their attempt to complete the Jewish religion, break the yokes of Judaism and present the Gospel to the world (Gentiles), they faced many adversaries and pushback from the believing and non-believing Jews. I don’t want to minimize God’s plan to one day see the Jews embrace Jesus as Messiah.

The first ten to fifty years of the Church was a struggle to legitimize how God had by design brought the Gospel out of the progression of the Jewish culture. All Christian theologians will agree, God’s dealings with Israel was a grand design to introduce Jesus and the Father’s redemptive plan to the world (nations). But the Jewish traditions where not that easy to break away from. (Jesus Himself often spoke against His people’s traditions.)

The heathen world was a different story. Their pagan gods and the philosophies of their sages helped them merge nature with human behavior. Overall, the heathen world was morally broken and always needed strong government to keep it from imploding on itself. We can see how the Roman Empire had to wielded brutal force at times to control populations.

The Church, early on, started to take the Gospel to the non-Jewish world.; first through Peter and then through Paul.

Let me get back to my subject; tradition of the Fathers verses the Bible. (I use the Bible here to mean scripture only, or the canonized books of the Bible)

I know that some of the things I am about to say are my opinion. I have availed myself of the knowledge of the Christian writers from the 1^st thru 3^rd centuries. (My main sources have been Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church & Ecclesiastical History: The Complete 8 Volume Edition of Schaff's Church History & The Eusebius' History of the Early Christianity. I am impressed by their scholarly presentation of information from those times.)

The canonized Bible came into major acceptance in the 4^th and 5^th centuries. Before then the scriptures were mainly letters circulated among the Christian communities. These letters were considered divinely inspired because the writer had to be one of Jesus’ direct apostles or having been mentioned by one of them. Also, there was many letters circulating that did not carry the original apostle inspired standard.

Now where the “tradition of the Fathers” carries weight is through the ecclesiastical leaders that followed the original apostles. They were charged with taking the Apostles’ doctrine to the next generation. The question was, did they agree and stay on point?

The standard, for both the canonized Bible and the tradition of the Father, must line up with the Apostles’ Doctrine.

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

   

Matthew 28:20 “Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

  

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

Now Apostle Paul did warn of deceptive doctrines in the following verse.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

The teachers that followed the original apostles were called Apostolic Fathers. After studying these Apostolic Fathers, I have respect for them but am cautious of some of their deviations from “sound” doctrine. They were interpreting what had been passed down to them.

Let me insert a NOTE: I know there is the logos Word and the rhema Word. Logos, the word written being clear in its meaning and the Rhema, being the Word breathed on or enhanced by the Holy Spirit. The fact is, there is no way a person or one church can know the fullness of God. I do believe that the Bible has the full counsel of God but to know and understand it all is beyond our human ability. God opens our understanding as He wills (releasing the rhema, deeper meaning). Therefore, there are going to be differences in interpretation that reflect personal, cultural and regional needs. I am confident if we are truly seeking with a pure heart, we will find what God has meant for us to understand and in the end it will not be a matter of contention. Unity does not have to be uniformity.

But there was contention among these Apostolic Fathers. At times it got bad. The original apostles did set a good example in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Counsel. The Church leaders (Bishops, Deacons, Priest) would at times pull these counsels together to air out their differences. The counsels helped to limit the differences by setting forth creeds.  They would meet, come to agreements in light of scriptures (or in light of the traditional teachings of the original apostles) and then put forth a creed for the believers to follow.

Then there arose the Catholic church, specifically the Roman Catholic Church. Now the RCC will say they just naturally emerged from Jesus and the Apostles. As the Gospel penetrated the Roman Empire there was many streams or regional churches that formed. In those days, everything flowed in and out of Rome. Therefore, Rome became the central point of Christianity and the Church leaders there were looked to as having a perceived authority.

I grew up among Protestants. As Protestants, they rarely had anything good to say about the Catholics. After this study I now have a respect for how the Catholics helped eliminated the excessive interpretations of doctrine.

Now here is where I get in trouble with my Catholic brothers. I feel like they over institutionalized the church. In the organization of the Church I feel there was a quenching of the Spirit. Then I look at the Protestant churches and I actually see the same thing. As we organize and put in place human structure it is easy to corner the spirit; that is, we pay less attention to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  I have seen healthy church structures where leaders pay close attention to the Holy Spirit.

Let me finalize.

The conflict over the “Bible only” and “tradition of the Fathers” is not really a conflict at all. Both must be empowered by the Holy Spirit or they are dry. I did not mean the Bible is dry. What I mean here is that the Bible and the traditions of the Fathers must be understood from a divine perspective.  

I am convinced that if my heart is right and not judgmental, I can be in the mist of any church service, liturgy, traditional or charismatic, and be blessed. I need to always look for the redemptive element.

I remember once hearing Eric Johnson say the following. He talked about a liturgical minister that made this statement, “Problems are like walls, you Charismatics aggressively attack it until it is demolished, where with us, we rise above it with liturgy.”

My renewed interest in Church history came about because a Catholic brother encouraged me to read the “Tradition of the Fathers”. I now have a greater understanding of how they influenced the Church, for good and for bad. I intend to continue reading on through the other centuries of the Church and may add future articles to this blog.

Please comment and give feedback

Three Types of Churches

Three Types of Churches

In most English versions of the Bible the word “church” is used 110 times. I have gone through the Bible and read these verses and have found four categories for the word translated church.

Biblical definition of church: From Greek “ekklesia”, where the word is a compound of two segments: "ek", a preposition meaning "out of", and a verb, "kaleo", signifying "to call" - together, literally, "to call out". Although that usage soon passed away and was replaced with "assembly, congregation, council", or "convocation". (Wikipedia dictionary) 

NOTE: In Matthew 16:18 Jesus did not state, “I will build My Temple” or “I will build My synagogue,” the two most prominent Jewish religious institutions at the time. Instead, He chose a secular entity first developed by the Greeks when He said, “I will build My Ekklesia.”

Mentioned in four categories but three types.

One is Universal Church: This would be all the saved, believers; those that believe Jesus is their Savior. Many times, the Universal Church is described as the Body of Christ (Jesus being the head and all believers making up His Body). This definition transcends denominations and covers all believers across the Earth and in heaven. Universal church, this definition covers 48 mentions in the Bible.

Test: How do you know a person, church or denomination is a believer. I like to use the Apostle John’s definition in 1 John 4: 2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God; Every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.” Now this is tricky because you have to judge the spirit of a man. This means looking deep into a person’s words and deeds and discerning the motive. So, to pronounce a person, church or denomination as unbelievers is risky.

Second is City churches: This is where all the believers in a given city are the church of that city. Now we know that these city churches mentioned in the Bible were in the first century and there were many factors that accounted for this. First of all, there was misunderstanding and persecution from the cultures they were in. In this case the people of God tended to stick together for safety. Maybe the spirit of division was less active back then. In Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelations, it is clear these messages were for city churches. City church is mentioned 37 times.

Third is House Churches: Paul and Luke clearly speak to churches in people’s homes or houses. This is where believers (families) would open their homes for other believers to meet. I would think this would mean, “local” community meetings where a portion of the believers from the city church. This definition is mentioned 5 times.

Forth, is were church could mean one of the above or all three. I’m sure a deeper study of the context would reveal which type was being referenced. This definition covers 20 mentions.

So, we have three definitions or types of churches. Only in the mention of the house churches is a building indicated. In the early part of Acts it does say they came together in the Temple; they also taught there. (Acts 2:46, Acts 3:1-10, Acts 5:20-21,24-25) Acts 5:42 goes on to mention how they did not cease teaching and preaching about Jesus in the Temple and from house to house.

I am not saying we are not to build church buildings for us to meet in. But there are two concepts here we can learn from scripture. The Early Church did meet in homes, but citywide unity was a distinguishing factor. Since separate institutional churches in the same city are not mentioned, I take this to be an indictment against division within the Church universal or at least within a city.

Remember the test the Apostle John gave us. Therefore, if a church across town does not believe like us doctrinally, then we should still accept them if they pass the 1 John 4: 2-3 test. Accepting churches that are doctrinally different is not heresy but rather showing unity as part of the Body. Unity does not have to be uniformity. I believe no one church has all or the complete Gospel (truth). The knowledge of God is so big that God only enlightens to a group what they need for their healing and the task He has for them. Just because they do not proclaim the Gospel the way we do, does not mean they are in error. Jesus’ commandment that we love one another should be our guiding principle.

Quoting Phillip Schaff, a highly respected 19^th century Church historian, concerning early Church buildings:

That the Christians in the apostolic age [Early Church] erected special houses of worship is out of the question, even on account of their persecution by Jews and Gentiles, to say nothing of their general poverty; and the transition of a whole synagogue to the new faith was no doubt very rare. As the Saviour of the world was born in a stable, and ascended to heaven from a mountain, so his apostles and their successors down to the third century, preached in the streets, the markets, on mountains, in ships, sepulchres, eaves, and deserts, and in the homes of their converts. But how many thousands of costly churches and chapels have since been built and are constantly being built in all parts of the world …

(Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church & Ecclesiastical History: Kindle Edition)

I believe we should focus more on the house church and the city church concepts. We could apply more resources toward house to house teaching, healing, training and developing relationships. As far as the function of the city church, we could show unity by organizing events that engage the culture.

Ok, lets not have a knee-jerk reaction and close all the church buildings. But we can start transitioning toward developing the city churches that are made up of house gatherings.

I do see a need for church buildings to evolve into multi-use facilities. More of a public gathering place that provides services for the general public: coffee shop, hair salon, book store, restaurant, car repair, exercise rooms, etc. Places where Christian staff serve the public with honor and concern.Where we touch the culture with Jesus' love.

Scriptures:

Universal Church: Matthew 16:18, Acts 5:11, Acts 20:28, Romans 16:4, Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 7:17, 1 Corinthians 10:32, 1 Corinthians 11:16, 1 Corinthians 11:22, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 1 Corinthians 14:19, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 14:35, 1 Corinthians 15:9, 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 Corinthians 8:18, 2 Corinthians 8:19, 2 Corinthians 8:23, 2 Corinthians 8:24, 2 Corinthians 11:8, 2 Corinthians 11:28, Galatians 1:13, Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 3:21, Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:24, Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:27, Ephesians 5:29, Ephesians 5:32, Philippians 3:6, Colossians 1:18, Colossians 1:24, 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 1 Timothy 3:15, Hebrews 12:23, Revelation 2:7, Revelation 2:11, Revelation 2:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation 2:29, Revelation 3:6, Revelation 3:13, Revelation 3:22, Revelation 22:16, = 48

City Church: Acts 2:47, Acts 5:12, Acts 8:1, Acts 9:31, Acts 11:22, Acts 11:26, Acts 13:1, Acts 14:23, Acts 14:27, Acts 15:3, Acts 15:4, Acts 15:22, Acts 15:41, Acts 16:5, Acts 18:22, Acts 20:17, Romans 16:1, Romans 16:23, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:4, 1 Corinthians 14:12, 2 Corinthians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 12:13, Philippians 3:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, Colossians 4:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:11, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 2:1, Revelation 2:8, Revelation 2:12, Revelation 2:18, Revelation 3:1, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 3:14, = 37

House church: Acts 8:3, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1:2, = 5

? church: Matthew 18:17, Acts 12:1, Acts 12:5, 1 Corinthians 11:18, 1 Corinthians 14:4, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:23, 1 Corinthians 14:26, 1 Corinthians 14:28, 2 Corinthians 8:1, Galatians 1:2, Galatians 1:22,  Philippians 4:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 5:16, James 5:14, 3 John 1:6, 3 John 1:9, 3 John 1:10, = 20