You’re out of your mind, you know. That sounds all nice and wonderful, but it’s not real. Real is my church, and it’s miserable.
We get along, but that’s about it. It’s a pain and a burden. I understand everything you say, but it’s not working for us.
I don’t know quite what the problem is. We’ve even hired consultants. We sing well enough. And our preacher isn’t bad.
But nothing excites. Nothing thrills. Nothing reminds me of, well, God’s voice from Mt. Sinai. We’re just going through the motions.
I don’t know that I can answer the question with any confidence, because I’m not a member of your church. But your problem is probably the same as the problem in most churches. You lack faith.
Hey! We’re not liberals, you know. We believe in the Bible. We’re sound!
No doubt, but are you faithful? Do you trust Jesus with your lives, or just enough to give him an hour a week of your lives?
Do you submit to him as Lord?
Here’s a test: Is your church willing to give up their preferences, their tastes, their traditions, for the sake of God’s mission?
If it’s like most churches, tradition and comfort trump mission. And that shows a lack of faith, that is a refusal to submit to Jesus as Lord.
Here’s another test. Who is the king of your church? Most churches have several kings.
There’s old brother Jones who teaches the senior member’s class, who gets more joy out of complaining and having his way than 10 baptisms.
There’s young sister Sally, who wants to be served by the nursery and the children’s program and the worship leader but has no interest in serving anyone else. In fact, if she’s not happy with the song choices, she’s made it clear that she’ll leave!
There’s deacon Harry who threatens to cut off his contribution every time the elders change the service times, because Harry likes routine.
All these members, and hundreds like them, worship the wrong lord. They worship tradition, and their preferences, and routine rather than Jesus. In fact, what they really want is a church that is an altar to themselves.
Think about it. When are they most thrilled? When someone else sacrifices for their benefit! And that means they think they are proper objects of sacrifice — of worship! Your church worships the wrong king.
Oh … my … God! You’re right! And I’m guilty, too. [pauses, choked up] What do we do?
Well, it’s not an easy path to change religions. All change is hard, but to go from self-worship to Christ-worship requires repentance. You have to see the world as it really is, a place ruled by Jesus and in which we serve by sacrificing ourselves to him.
On that altar we place not only time and money, but power and preference and taste.
And that means church can no longer be about power. Threats to leave or withhold contributions or not volunteer should be taken as the idolatry they are.
(2Co 12:9 ESV) 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Teach your members to be weak. In America, the political, legal, and economic systems are all built on the power of the individual. We celebrate the empowerment of each person to make choices. We call it “freedom.”
God calls it “slavery.” You see, power corrupts. Power makes us worship the wrong god. Power makes us strong among men but weak before God.
(Rom 6:16-18 ESV) 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Therefore, for the church to become a preview of the afterlife, we have to surrender. That’s one reason church plants often do much better than established churches with larger buildings, staffs, and budgets. In a plant, everyone joins established leaders and submits to the pre-existing mission and vision.
But in a long-time congregation, the members have been there and often hold more power than the staff and perhaps even the elders. Therefore, the members see the staff and leaders as being there to serve the members.
I know of no solution other than a brutally honest conversation. You need sermons and lessons where the leadership “shells the corn,” as we say here in West Alabama. That means, “Get past the outside layers and down to the inward parts that matter.” Talk about power. Talk about idolatry. Be painfully honest. Don’t speak in euphemisms.
Be gentle. Be loving. Be kind. Show your feelings. Show the pain that selfishness brings to you and others. Make sure the church feels the suffering they cause. Lovingly. But truthfully.
Don’t lie. Don’t tell half truths. Spell it out in no uncertain terms. Avoid sarcasm and attacks. Don’t run people off, but don’t let them stay under false pretenses.
This is an intervention. Literally. You might even check out literature on how to do an intervention for an addict, replacing “drug addiction” with “self-worship.” The rules for an intervention are clear enough —
* Be brutally honest. Preachers and elders are bad to speak about problems in coded, indirect language. It doesn’t work. Be plain spoken. Not hateful, but frank.
* Communicate love over and over. And over.
* Insist on change. Set a definite time. You don’t negotiate with self-worshipers, but you do allow time to repent. But the leaders set the schedule. Don’t empower the power hungry.
* Be prepared to respond to objections. In church, this means bogus doctrinal claims. Don’t get distracted. Respond, but don’t get into a long debate over the relative theological merits of Chris Tomlin vs. Stamps-Baxter. Trust me: the objector won’t get much beyond accusation. Just respond factually and move on.
* Set clear boundaries — because the addict will not have the judgment needed to make good decisions for a while. For an alcoholic, you might remove all alcohol from the house. For a self-worshiper, you might ban all complaining. You might even insist that they write a weekly letter complimenting something about the church — even if it’s just the height of the steps to the front door. Find something good to say, and say it out loud.
Thanks. But I’m not sure we have the courage …
I’m going to say this very plainly:
The reason people reject the church is because the church worships the wrong lord.
The reason so few people are being converted by the church is because the church worships the wrong lord.
The reason the world is going to hell all around us, crime rates are high, marriages are crumbling, and poverty is destroying lives is because the church worships the wrong lord.
Why on earth would you want to persist in idolatry? Have you not read the Bible? Idolaters don’t end well.
If you confront self-worship and idolatry in your church and the church splits and even dies because of it, the Kingdom will have lost nothing of consequence. (At least then you could join a church that has faith in Jesus.) But if you succeed, then the world changes.
Do you want the world to be changed? Change your congregation, and then watch God go to work among your people! It will be astounding. It’ll be like hearing the voice of God, with trumpets and thunder from the top of Mt. Sinai.
It’s worth the risk. Faith takes risks because faith trusts God.
Jay, you are a wild-eyed dreamer and I love you Man! I wonder if you have seen the transformation you described personally or are you just describing a dream? I’d love to believe that what you describe could happen in my church but it has to happen within leadership first and I believe my leadership is pretty happy with the way things are going now. An addict has to “hit bottom” before recovery can begin and I don’t think the CofC has “hit bottom” yet in my neck of the woods. I do believe theCofC is well on its’ collective way to the bottom though so perhaps there is hope.
Jay said “All these members, and hundreds like them, worship the wrong lord. They worship tradition, and their preferences, and routine rather than Jesus.”
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
proskyneō = worship = used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
As we see this definition of worship allows for one to “worship” one of superior rank.
Which Jesus definitely qualifies for.
But that is not the definition to which Jesus referred, this seems to be.—in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication–this more closely coincides with old testament worship, to which Jesus referred. (for it is written)
Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:
shachah= worship= bow down
Yes Jesus the son of God deserves worship as our superior, but Jesus is not the object of our worship in Church services. It has always been my understanding that we attend Church to join Jesus in worship of God the Father.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Doug,
Could you explain what you mean in comparing the collective Church of Chrsit to an addict that needs to “hit bottom” before “recovery can begin”?
What “bottom” do you believe and hope it is that the churches are going to hit?
When you say the CofC is “well on it’s way” to the bottom? What do you mean? Are you referring to how liberal…. err…. progressive so many individual churches have allowed themselves to digress?
Just curious…
I mean, we all know that the collective CofC is growing less and less distinct from the “other churches”. Is that why you say we are well on our way to hitting bottom?
Hank,
What I meant by hitting bottom is that CofC people are leaving the CofC in droves (102,000 since 2003) and CofC’s are closing their doors in record numbers (over 600 since 2003). People are expressing their displeasure with the CofC and what they experience there with their feet and I anticipate that this trend will accelerate. It’s statistics, not religious theory anymore and it has nothing to do with “distinctness” and all to do with spiritual objectives and peoples needs. I don’t know how far the CofC needs to fall to hit bottom and I’m sure that some people will still be expounding upon their distinctness and conservative-ness when the doors of their church close but I anticipate that some will not. I expect some will try to do the things that Jay speaks about.
Jay said: “Teach your members to be weak.”
>>>
Now you’re starting to sound counter-intuitive, counter-cultural, and radical. You know, like Jesus.
Other “lords” are the church, the congregation, and the Bible. These things must find their own right place, rather than the seat of lordship to which they have ascended. We’ll “shell the corn” when we openly acknowledge that our congregation is not eternal, our denomination is not the church, and the Bible is not the fourth member of the Godhead.
Time to admit that we have become the customers and the staff has become our servants, rather than the community being the “customer” and we, their servants.
Time to admit that the most important thing to us has been for our congregation to survive, and to repent of that proprietary view.
And I don’t know how long it takes for a congregation or a denomination to hit “rock bottom”, but I know how to tell when you get there. You find yourself no longer able to blame the world, or the devil, or the culture, or the lack of commitment among church members, or even God himself. You look one another in the eye, swallow hard, and say, “Folks, it’s not them… it’s US.”
And therein there is hope.
Doug,
It appears as though you are convinced that whether or not a church has proper spiritual objectives and the ability to meet the needs of people, is to be determined by the numbers (whether it is growing or declining). Is that true?
If it is, do you believe that the growing numbers of the
JW’s proves that they are more on the right track and pleasing to God then whatever religious groups/churches are declining in numbers?
If not, then what is it exactly that you believe the numbers prove?
Because I don’t necessarily believe that we can determine how pleasing and/or displeasing a church/religious group is based on whether it is growing or not. .
Hank,
I know that people are created as spiritual beings and unless they are completely in league with satan, they search for spirtual meaning. If they can’t find it in one church, they will move on to another. Some people find meaning in rules, strictness, self-denial, family closeness, being the only “Right” group, etc. So some church grow will occur based upon that sort of thing. I think that kind of growth is not sustainable in the long term. I think the CofC has experienced growth of that nature and now that growth has stopped and the CofC group is now contracting. That doesn’t preclude some other group with a different, also incorrect self-identification from experiencing growth. Their growth will also probably be temporal. The real question is what church identification produces a church that Jesus would love? I think Jay’s 20th sequel is pointing toward that church. I also dislike your way of trying to trap people by manipulating their words.
Doug,
I deny trying to “trap people by manipulating their words”. In fact, I “dislike” your way of accusing me of such.
But, those were/are fair questions. You made the point that the collective cofc is well on its way to hitting bottom akin to some sort of addict needing to bottom
out in order to make positive change. Your proof of all of this is to be found in the fact that its numbers are declining. That was YOUR argument bro. I merely asked about if you were consistent with that because I had a feeling it was something personal between you and the cofc as a whole? Turns out, you don’t always believe the numbers (good or bad) are an accurate reflection on whether or not a church /religious group are doing the right things. Its seems almost like you have a special ability to know WHEN the numbers are an accurate indicator.
For example, when the cofc was the fastest growing church around…do you believe that proves they were doing things better then?
I’m just trying to understand how you know if/when growing numbers prove a church/religion is on the right track and how you know if/when declining numbers prove a church or religion is on its way to hitting the bottom because it is on the wrong track.
How do you really know that declining numbers prove a church is doing things the wrong way? At least be consistent with your own theories.
Declining numbers only prove a group is getting smaller. Just as increasing numbers only prove a group is getting bigger.
And while I don’t believe that all of the saved are members of a “cofc”… I believe that the number of the saved on earth at any given time has always gone through “ups and Downs”.
Hank, sometimes organizations do have cycles of membership waxing and waning, but the CoC’s numbers have been waning for years. More significantly, if you put aside the numerical growth among the CoC’s “liberal” congregations, the more traditional CoCs’ attendance has dropped markedly. Meanwhile, charismatic and independent groups report growth. This is not just a statistical anomaly. People are LEAVING your group and not returning. Kids leave the CoC for college and never come back to the CoC. (Mine sure didn’t return, and are doing great spiritually.) Most find themselves in another denomination or independent fellowship afterward. The majority of those departing the CoC are not leaving the faith, they are merely leaving the denomination.
Standing on this reality as a weird point of pride is just whistling past the graveyard. No, a decline in membership is not necessarily an indication of God’s disfavor. But it’s no sign of his favor, either. As I suggested earlier, there will come a time when an individual CoC looks at itself and stops blaming others (including God!) for the unattractiveness of its message. At that point, a hard and honest look within will reveal much. Repentance may begin, and the local group might reverse the course. This will happen locally, not corporately, as the CoC holds its local sovereignty as its third-most-important distinctive.
Until then, I expect the current trend to continue.
I am sitting here smiling at how Lamond sees the hole and misses the donut! Good post Jay. Powerful
Just a personal comment, not directed at any one person- It is hard for me to accept that most of the commenters on Jay’s blog are now or have ever been a member of the “Church of Christ” and I am baffled as to why they still claim to be a member of such a flawed organization. Maybe the children would return, if their parents didn’t trash it so much.
I think that the declining numbers are just a sign of the times in terms of the religious landscape in America. Just look at how many hundreds of Baptist churches no longer call themselves Baptist. We all know that more than ever, it is not so cool to say “we believe this about that and believe everything else is untrue”. People /churches are so ashamed it seems to be seen as “narrow minded” and even firm in whatever it is they believe. And the cofc has always been the firmist. Which is not cool nowadays.
A lot of people prefer a church that “stays away from doctrinal issues” and teaches like Joel Olsteen.
Clyde, I see the donut, but the hole is what scares me. The hole is the trap.
If we worshiped, believed and practiced as the words and thoughts we sing it would sure help.
AJ, your right
Hank,
I don’t think I ever said “hitting bottom” was related in any way to a church “doing things the wrong way” (whatever that means… I assume you mean non-scriptural). I do think that “hitting bottom” ought to make a church consider why they are bottoming out. And I gave a few examples of things that might make a church both grow and shrink as their appeal to the worshipping public grows and wanes. I see nothing wrong in at least considering the idea that it might be something that the church is doing that is in no way associated with biblical truth. Even worse, it might be something that the church is doing that is actually associated with biblical untruth or distortion. It does absolutely no good to stand your ground if that is the case. I am not about following public whims but it does no good to just ignore the facts and act as though there’s no problem. Here’s the news: There IS a problem! As far as this being a general demise of the overall church, the Independent Christian Church is still doing well and is growing. Now, there are certainly differences between the ICC and the CofC but folks… they are similar is many, many ways. The ICC isn’t a bunch of believe anything people. And in a general sense it is the Liberal church that is really losing people not the Conservative church… the CofC is bucking the trend and that ought to be disturbing to the CofC.
One positive I would have to say about the C of C is that they seem to be the most consistent in letting members exercise their spiritual gifts. So many of the others only want their staff doing the work while letting members feel good about themselves IF they are tithing. So a possible reason of decline in the C of C is because we have a society that expects to be entertained and served, which goes against the heart of the Gospel.
Hank says
“I think that the declining numbers are just a sign of the times in terms of the religious landscape in America.”
Hank, have you accepted defeat? Church decline is not the will of God.
Acts 6:7 “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.”
Acts 14:21 “They preached the good news in that city and won a large number of disciples. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch”
Acts 11:21 “The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.”
Acts 11:24 “He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.”
Acts 14:1 “At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed.”
Acts 16:5 “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.”
It is evident from the passages cited that the Holy Spirit, through the pen of Luke, used numbers to describe successes of the early church; even to the extent that he described their growth as being the result of the “Lord’s hand” being with them. In other words, the Lord was causing the growth.
Colossians 2 is an intriguing chapter. It was extracted from a context in which Paul is exalting Christ as the head and the substance of the church while warning the congregants of the church at Colosse not to be taken captive by “hollow” philosophy, i.e., espoused values which have nothing to do with Jesus’ purpose for his people. In the midst of that context (verse 19) he refers to one who espouses the hollow philosophy as a member of the body (that is the church) who has “lost connection with the head.” He wrote:
“He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow. Colossians” 2:19
The last 6 words of that text, “As God Causes it to grow,” tells us who causes the church to grow. One of our (CofC) favorite passages is Acts 2:47 –
And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
We use this passage to tell people that they cannot join the church. Yet, we miss the point of it. It is showing that God causes growth. It is he who adds. If God is still causing growth and if a church is not experiencing the growth he is causing, then something is inhibiting that growth in the church. Jay is onto an important subject – I’m taking notes!
Laymond noted: “It is hard for me to accept that most of the commenters on Jay’s blog are now or have ever been a member of the “Church of Christ”…”
>>>
Yes, it’s hard to see past our assumptions. We all have this problem. Many true things are hard to accept, because they contradict our assumptions. But we do well to endeavor to accept that which is true rather than try to prop up our contrary assumptions, or worse, just denying testimony strictly because it does not suit us.
Laymond, has it occurred to you that it is only members and former members of the CoC who are likely to have any interest in addressing and correcting the problems found there? Who else cares WHAT the CoC does? If I did not have historic and relational connections to this denomination, I wouldn’t even HAVE an opinion about it.
This is one thing I appreciate about Jay’s blog– it seems to attract a variety of thought, and it clearly allows some dedicated members of the CoC to express and consider ideas which they’re not so sure would be welcome at the home church.
“If I did not have historic and relational connections to this denomination, I wouldn’t even HAVE an opinion about it.”
Charles that statement could be construed as being selfish.
Charles,
Do you really believe that some cofc’s blame God for their lack of growth? How so? Are you serous?
And could explain more about those who allegedly treat the Bible as the “fourth member of the godhead”. How so? Again, are you serious?
It seems that more and more, people who take a stand and defend even the clearest of Bible doctrines are accused of things like that. That they worship the Bible, that they are legalistic, that they need to let Jesus move from their head to their earth, and a bunch of otherjunk like that. That they need to make Jesus more important than doctrine.
Reminds me of the old Tom T Hall song “me and Jesus”
Me and Jesus got our own thing going
Me and Jesus got it all worked out
Me and Jesus got our own thing going
We don’t need anybody to tell us what its all about.
(Including the Bible)
Heart, not earth…. lol
Funny how transposing one letter can change the meaning of a word so much , Isn’t it Hank, ? Yet we all know exactly what the writers of the bible wrote, they didn’t make mistakes like the modern day man does. 🙂
Adam wrote: “One positive I would have to say about the C of C is that they seem to be the most consistent in letting members exercise their spiritual gifts.”
>>>>
Adam, while I am very glad you have this experience in the CoC, I would suggest that it may not be the general rule. I have not yet been in a CoC which openly acknowledges spiritual gifts. A few of the gifts are accepted– serving, governing– but most are not recognized. I have not yet attended a CoC which did not teach cessation of spiritual gifts, or at least tacitly practice it.
I would agree that the CoC is less staff-led than some other groups, and that volunteers lead many functions of most congregations. But I think this is more attributable to the small average size of the congregation and the traditionally weaker role the CoC assigns to preachers. As a congregation gets bigger, the first item on the agenda seems to be seating space. Second priority is to add staff.
Hank asked: “Charles, do you really believe that some cofc’s blame God for their lack of growth? How so? Are you serous?”
>>>>
Certainly. I often hear the idea of the “narrow way” and the “straight gate” used to justify why a congregation –or the denomination– is no larger than it is. The sentiment seems to be, “God is excluding people, it’s not our decision. God does not intend for very many to be saved. So it makes perfect sense that our group does not grow.” Setting one’s own group up as the “righteous remnant” or one of the “few there be that find it” explains that such a limited membership is a matter of divine intent, and is actually a clear mark of our faithfulness. Those churches who ARE growing are just doing so by departing from “soundness”. In other words, if they followed God as well as we do, they wouldn’t grow so much.
>
Hank also asked: “And could explain more about those who allegedly treat the Bible as the “fourth member of the godhead”. How so? Again, are you serious?”
>>>>
Indeed I am quite serious. John tells us that Jesus is The Word of God (caps mine). Many people have shifted that identity to the canon. Today, the CoC teaches that the Bible is The Word of God. Much of the argument over biblical inspiration insists upon a textual perfection of the scriptures that can only be described as ‘divine’. We quote and debate and stand on the authority of Greek as though this were God’s own native tongue.
Not only has the NT canon been given a divine identity which rightly belongs only to Jesus, it has in many CoC circles also been given a divine identity which Jesus ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Today, we teach that the Bible will lead us into all truth. I think that most CoC’s have outgrown the old replacement theology wherein they claim that the Bible IS the Holy Spirit– or at least all the Holy Spirit we will ever encounter. But the roots of that particular heresy have not been dug up and it is still an intramural issue in the conservative CoC. Ask Phil Sanders.
So, when you take portions of the divine identities of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and proceed to now attribute them entirely to the NT canon– which book, by the way, MAKES NO SUCH CLAIMS ITSELF– you have indeed pushed that canon to a level of divinity.
The fault does not lie in the book, but in what men have done with it.
Charles said: “If I did not have historic and relational connections to this denomination, I wouldn’t even HAVE an opinion about it.”
Lamond replied: “Charles that statement could be construed as being selfish.”
>>>
If it is selfish to restrict one’s opinions to subjects wherein one has some actual personal interest or understanding, I for one vote would vote for a little more selfishness among us.
“Like one who takes a dog by the ears is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him.”
Charles,
Do you believe that the teaching(s) of the Bible actually precludes you and whatever church you are a part of from welcoming in and accepting ANY people as Christians and members of the church?
If so, then according to your own logic, you too could
blame God for preventing the church from being as big as it could be without any preclusions at all.
What would be the difference. For even you have a boundary line SOMEWHERE (I think you do), you just push it out a out a little (or a lot) further than the churches with which you such a problem with.
Basically, you condemn your own self with the very logic you employ in order to accuse others of blaming God for a lack of growth.
And I’m not manipulating your words. Merely applying them to you just as you have done unto others.
Charles,
That’s why I think a lot of it might be a cultural problem. However, in the many deniomations my family has seriously considered going to the last two years, the C of C has been the most open to non staff members coming in and leading things or being a part of things. And this is true of more than one C of C congregation we have checked out.
Hank, if you are going to tell me what I think, could you do so more succinctly? I’m missing your point.
I have suggested that the screening methods we seem to be currently using to protect the reputation of the church are inconsistent and not the same ones Jesus seems to have had. If you disagree, and think that these boundaries ARE consistent with each other or with what Jesus demonstrated, feel free to explain how that is so.
Or Hank, you could just step up and voice your objection to my reasoning without trying to sign my name to your argument. If you’re still put out about the conclusion I drew about your reasoning earlier on a different subject, I’m sorry you were nettled by that. And I am open to changing my conclusion if you present any contrary evidence. But that does not add any weight to your words here. And neither does sniping at my past and trying to judge my motivations. I don’t have the power to “condemn myself”, and thankfully, neither do you.
Now then, to your question, which is fuzzy at best. You seem to be conflating and confusing “welcome” and “acceptance” and “membership” and “being a Christian”. All those have entirely different meanings and multiple contexts and when you compound them, it makes any simple answer inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. So, I’ll try to give some approximation which might clarify my thinking:
Welcoming an unbeliever into a meeting does not make him a Christian.
Excluding an unbeliever from a meeting does not demonstrate our piety or our purity.
Welcoming an agnostic to our meeting, and to the potluck afterward, is not a declaration that his views are the same as ours. It does not do this the first time we welcome him, and it does not do so the twentieth time we welcome him. If proximity to sin was to be avoided at all costs, church services would all have to be held via Skype.
Eating a meal with a prostitute does not make me a customer, nor a moral supporter of that trade. Feeding her kids does not make me a pimp. Making her welcome at a meeting does not make us all whoremongers.
Those who are sick need a physician. Not a physician who refuses to be seen with them.
We are not going to be very effective at reaching any lost person when we are willing to talk to him about Jesus on the street but don’t want him near us at church on Sunday. “Yes, Jesus loves you, but stay away from our church until you are ready to sober up and to admit that the Bible is inspired.” Sigh.
Some people seem to be afraid that if they let the barriers down, their congregation would be overrun with drunks and atheists and homosexuals and girls with neck tats. (Although that sounds like a wonderful opportunity to share the gospel. That’s what a tank commander calls a “target-rich environment”.) But the fear seems to be that others around us will think badly of our church if it fills up with gang-bangers and junkies. Or, even worse, with charismatics and liberals. But why worry? You don’t fellowship anybody in the community anyway! Who cares what they think? And anyway, sinners can take a hint; they know when they’re not wanted. They won’t stay long. So you’re perfectly safe.
All that worry over nothing.
Charles,
Nice straw man arguments – but there us a difference between welcoming one into our meeting and sharing fellowship with one as a member of local church
And, I do see how insisting that the entire church agree (or “admit”, as you put it) that the Bible is inspired
..could prevent challenges in keeping people coming who refuse to believe the Bible is from God and his holy word.
Laymond wrote,
The NT frequently refers to worship [proskuneo] of Jesus.
(Mat 2:1-2 ESV) Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, 2 saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship [proskuneo] him.”
(Mat 14:33 ESV) And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
(Mat 28:9 ESV) And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.
(Mat 28:17 ESV) And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.
(Luk 24:51-53 ESV) 51 While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.
(Joh 9:38 ESV) He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
(Act 13:2 ESV) 2 While they were worshiping [leitourgeo] the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
It’s clearly permissible and even commended to proskuneo Jesus. The word is used in the LXX to refer to ritual sacrifice, but in the NT refers to spontaneous worship.
It’s quite impossible to find references to “worship” tied to the Sunday assembly, making it impossible to demonstrate what kind of worship is or isn’t tied to the assembly. Therefore we shouldn’t invent rules from whole cloth. If Jesus may be worshiped in a manger, boat, or upper room, he may be worshiped in a church building.
Acts 13:2 useds leitourgeo (root of “liturgy”), which is normally a reference to a sacred rite, especially the service of priests at the temple. But it’s used more broadly at times, but nonetheless suggests a planned or recurring worship — something appropriately analogized to the temple service.
But the reference to “Lord” is ambiguous, because both God and Jesus are referred to as “Lord” in Acts. I would argue that the passage is speaking of Jesus, but I don’t think the case can be made definitively.
Doug,
Yes, I’ve seen transformation actually happen in church. It’s all about faith in Jesus.
(And I’ll be addressing the accelerating decline of CoC numbers soon.)
Jay, if you notice I did not deny that Jesus, as the son of God deserved worship, as one above the worshiper, and “proskuneo” always means worship, but there are different degrees of worship (as I see the definition of this word) Jesus deserves worship as the son of God, The Father demands WORSHIP as GOD our creator. A difference there. And The Father is the subject of my worship in church service. I also see The Father as the subject of Jesus’ Worship. I guess one can worship whom ever they wish. Not my call.
But I do recall what Jesus said to Satan when he asked for worship.
I just can’t see the Jesus I follow as saying (upon this rock I build my church,to worship me) not very humble if you were to ask me.
Jay said “It’s quite impossible to find references to “worship” tied to the Sunday assembly, making it impossible to demonstrate what kind of worship is or isn’t tied to the assembly. Therefore we shouldn’t invent rules from whole cloth. If Jesus may be worshiped in a manger, boat, or upper room, he may be worshiped in a church building.”
What is baffling to me Jay, is why would you pick, The Son of God, to worship, and not The Son’s God/Father.
Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
Seems to me I worship the same God as Jesus does.
Laymond raises an interesting point. When I meet the Lord, the Son of God, I suspect I will immediately commence to worshipping him.
However, down here, it does seem as though all of my prayers and worship is directed toward the Father.
Too, we know that Jesus was all about worshipping the Father….but, do we ever read of the Father worshipping the Son?
1Pe 2:4 As you come to him, the living Stone–rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him–
1Pe 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
(in Jesus name)
Laymond, both Jesus and the the Father were involved in the creation.
So was the Holy Spirit but nobody in the Bible ever worshipped him. Or did they?
Wendy, If Jesus was with God at creation, he was a servant–according to scripture.
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, [in whom] my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isa 42:2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isa 42:3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
Isa 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
One might say surely God was not speaking of his son as his servant. But let’s see what Jesus the son said about this very scripture.
Mat 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Mat 12:15 But when Jesus knew [it], he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
Mat 12:16 And charged them that they should not make him known:
Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Mat 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
Mat 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Mat 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.