Revive | Vol. 07, Issue No. 11 | November 2014

contents

revive

www.revivemegod.org

renewing and enriching life

E-mail: revivemegod@gmail.com

igotoibc@gmail.com

Vol.07, Issue No.11 November 2014

A magazine that will enrich and renew your Spiritual life and give Christian perspective on current events.

5

Editorial

6

The Church - Its Biblical Foundation

10

Pastor Dr. John K. Mathew

Pastor Dr. A. C. George

Neither Organism nor Organization; The Church is an indescribable mystery Dr. J.N. Manokaran

CHAIRMAN PASTOR T. S. ABRAHAM VICE-CHAIRMAN PASTOR Dr.T. VALSON ABRAHAM MEMBERS BRO. JACOB THOMAS BRO. SUNNY KODUMTHARA EDITOR PASTOR DR. JOHN K. MATHEW ADMINISTRATIVE EDITOR PASTOR SAJU JOSEPH ASSOCIATE EDITOR MRS. STARLA LUKOSE

13

CHURCH - THE BODY OF CHRIST: A SPIRTUAL ANATOMY

16

CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

19

‘Church’ through the Centuries: A Historical Perspective

24

Post- denominationalism is here to stay?

MANAGER PASTOR T.J. ABRAHAM CONTRIBUTING WRITERS JUNE THOMAS ANN ABRAHAM PUBLISHER, PRINTER & OWNER MAJOR V. I. LUKOSE (Retired) HEBRON, KUMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA. PRINTED AT VIANI PRINTINGS, LISSIE JN., ERNAKULAM, KERALA PLACE OF PUBLICATION KUMBANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA - 689 547 DESIGN Beam Design S2dio Ph: 0481-2563554 beamfine@gmail.com

POSTAL ADDRESS P.O. BOX. 31, HEBRON, KUMBANAD KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 689 547 Phone: 0469 - 2664075, 2665855 Mobile: 94476 08954

Dr. T. P. Varghese

Dr. Laji Paul

Dr. V.V.Thomas

Dr. P. U. Paulson

The views and ideas expressed in each article are those of the writer.

- Editor Pictures Courtesy : Google

NOVEMBER 2014

3

revive renewing and enriching life

Letters

Inductive Bible Study Dear Editor, The article on 'Inductive Study Method' by Mrs. Lily Abraham was very informative.

This method of interpretation is helpful for common believers who have no formal Bible training at all. I had heard about this method and was excited to see the October issue of revive. It is my desire that such a training in this method should be made available to all interested church members.

This will help ordinary believers gain a balanced and proper understanding of the message of the Bible. I am grateful to revive and pray for the blessing of God upon this ministry.

Thomas V. C. Chennai NOVEMBER - 2014

4

best issue!

Dear Editor, I enjoyed reading the October issue of Revive (No.10 vol.7).

I would say it is one of best issues as it talks about hermeneutics, that is my favorite subject. As you have mentioned earlier, it may not be appreciated by ordinary members of the church except those who are really into some serious study of the Bible.

There is one question that I wanted to ask in this regard.

Please let me know how you interpret it: It is an old question asked by many but not answered satisfactorily. Think about it and let me have your interpretation.

Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Would God arrange for a person to actually sin and rebel just to make Himself great? Are we to believe that God Himself arranged for Pharaoh to sin? Isn't God compassionate toward all men - even sinners? And if so, how could He harden Pharaoh's heart while simultaneously loving him and feeling compassion for him?

How will you apply God's motive to our present day life dealings?

A Well Wisher, Thiruvalla

Bible – A Love Letter Dear Editor, I believe that will be no exaggeration in saying that the October issue of the revive magazine was an exemplary one with its topic, “Interpretation of the Bible” is a subject which Christian publications generally don’t deal with. However, it was a boon for people like me. All the different articles dealt with various aspects of Biblical interpretation. Very specially the “Just One Minute…’ of Rev. Dr. T. Valson Abraham speaks about the nature of the Bible. He says that at its heart, the Bible is a love letter. It is a Book to be read as personally written to each of us in our fallen

humanity as if written to us alone.

It is at this level that the Bible not only gives us profound truth, but transforms our lives. Only the one who senses the presence of true love can fathom the real meaning of a love letter.

Reji Thomas,Trichur

Watchdog against Heresies Dear revive, It is very true that heresies are increasing today more than ever. The main reason is the independent selfish interpretation of the Bible by any one who wants to introduce a doctrine. Domenic Marbaniang righty says that the right biblical interpretation follows proper principles and methods of interpretation or hermeneutics (dealt with in other articles in this issue). Without the tools of proper interpretation one can become the victim of heretical interpretation. The example of the false interpretation by the Jehovah Witnesses cited in his article is indeed an eye opener to all. We are also called to be watch dogs against heresies.

Johny Varghese, Dubai

Right Meaning Dear Editor, Getting the right meaning of the scripture is the result of much effort and study. This is clear from the article of Rev. P.G.Immanuel on the “Principles of Interpretation”. Also he writes about the qualifications of an interpreter. To properly understand the original and literal meaning one requires studying the text in its original contexts – literary, historical, geographic, cultural and theological.

Similarly, the interpreter needs to distinguish between the literary devices – like narrative, parable, uses of figures of speech etc. Let’s pray for raising good interpreters in the church today.

Joji George, Palghat

Literal Interpretation Dear revive, I wholeheartedly appreciate the revive team for bringing out such a very useful a relevant issue in October. Rev.Saju Joseph he deals with the different method of writing, its merits and demerits. It is both a guide to sincere interpreters and a warning to the wrong interpretations. I understood that the right method is the literal method integrating with certain aspects from other methods, but based on the scripture only.

To interpret literally means to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer according to the normal, customary, and proper usages of words and language.

This method is also called the Grammatical-Historical method because, in order to determine the normal and customary usages of Biblical language, the accepted rule of grammar and rhetoric must be considered and the historical and cultural aspects of Bible times must be taken into consideration. May our good Lord help today’s Bible scholars to rightly divide the Word of Truth! mathews Orathel, Kottayam

Scholarly Issue Dear Editor, The October issue of revive was, for Christian ministers like me, exceptionally useful.

It provided very simple, vivid and yet exhaustive principles of Biblical interpretation. May I confess that I did not gain so much valuable input even from my formal Bible school study.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the revive editorial team and the writers for their hard work behind this issue. May God bless all the writers and readers alike.

Johnson Mathew, Coimbatore

revive renewing and enriching life

Pastor Dr. John K. Mathew

Scripture indicates that the universal church was born on the

Day of Pentecost. Many theologians believe the church did not exist in Old Testament times. Matthew 16:18 cites Jesus, "I will build my church".

This indicates that at the moment He spoke these words, the church was not yet in existence. Scripture also refers to both the universal church and the local church. The universal church is a company of people who have one Lord and who share together in one gift of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. It may be defined as the ever enlarging body of born-again believers who comprise the universal body of Christ, over which He reigns as Lord. The one universal church is represented by many local churches scattered throughout the world. The New Testament strongly urges believers to attend local churches. Hebrews 10:25 specifically instructs us not to forsake meeting together. The Christian life as described in Scripture is to be lived within the context of the family of God and not in isolation. Morover, by attending church, we become equipped for Christian ministry.

The church our Lord Jesus Christ promised to build was not an organization. He intended it to be an organism. By the use of these two terms organism and organizationwe are not merely playing with words, but emphasizing a sadly neglected truth. Sufficient distinction is not made between the true Church, and the professing Church; between the outward and the invisible; between the body and the building; or between the church organized and the Church organic.

The church which is the body of Christ should be an organism as in a human body there are a variety of cells. There are nerve cells, blood cells, muscle cells, and many others - each having a distinct function. The body operates smoothly, not because the cells get together and vote on what to do,but because each one does what it was designed to do. It is the function of the head to bring all these different functions together, so that the body operates effectively as each cell gives itself to the task of functioning according to its design. Certainly the body would not operate properly if its cells chose to go their own way. Do you know what we call a rebellion of the cells of your stomach? We call it indigestion. A revolt of your brain cells is called insanity.

Any time the cells in our body don't operate properly, it means that the body is sick, that something is wrong with it.

Many of the problems in the church today are a result of our forgetting that the church is a body with a head, Jesus Christ.

Instead we sometimes try to operate the church as an organization. As a result, the church has no more power than any other human organization at work in the world.

May we be willing to cause a radical change in our perspective about the nature of the church.

One hundred religious persons knit into a unity by careful organization do not constitute a church any more than eleven dead men make a football team.

The first requisite is life, always.

A. W. Tozer

NOVEMBER - 2014

5

revive renewing and enriching life

Pastor Dr. A. C. George Former Principal Southern Asia Bible College, Bangalore

The

early Church worshiped the risen Saviour wherever they could gather.

When they did, they experienced the presence and power of God.

The Church

Its Biblical Foundation The Church that Jesus came to build has been

in existence for almost two thousand years. With the fragmentation of the Church into so many groups and organizations, confusion prevails among many regarding the origin and nature of the Church. The focus of this article is to examine the biblical foundation of the Church in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

1. Etymology

NOVEMBER - 2014

6

The English word 'Church' is derived from the Greek adjective 'Kyriakos', which means the Lord’s. When combined with such words 'asoikiaor doma', for example, 'Kyriakeoikia',means 'the Lord’s house', a Christian place of worship.

However, the New Testament word for 'Church' is 'ekklesia', which means 'a local congregation of believing Christians'. Ekklesia which is used in the Septuagint about 100 times can be translated as assembly, meeting, congregation, synagogue in different contexts. Only once it is used for Church

and that is when Stephen in his speech, refers to the Israelites as “a church in the wilderness” (Acts 7: 38). It is worthy of notice that ekklesia was never used for a building. In the N. T. times ekklesia was a public assembly of citizens duly summoned for a purpose.

The tendency to make the places of worship more beautiful, expensive and ornate, as was done in the medieval period, simply ignores the fact that God places the premium not in the meeting places, but on the people who come together in the name of Christ to worship God “in the Spirit and in Truth”. (Jn. 4:24; Matt. 18:20).

The early Church worshiped the risen Saviour wherever they could gather. When they did, they experienced the presence and power of God. They believed that the Spirit who dwelt in them made them the temple of the living God (1Cor. 3: 16). The experience of gathering together and worshipping their Lord and Saviour was more

revive renewing and enriching life

The Five Dimensions of a Healthy Church 1.Churches grow warmer through fellowship.

2. Churches grow deeper through discipleship. important to the early Christians than the place of worship.

2. The Biblical Foundation a. In the Old Testament There is no explicit references to or descriptions of the Church in the Old Testament. However, we do have some implicit references and foreshadowing of the Church in the O.T. The following examples may be sufficient to verify this truth.

• The Abrahamic Covenant

In God’s calling of Abraham and making him the Father of all nations on earth, we can catch a glimpse of God’s redemptive purposes for humanity (Gen.12:1-3; 22: 18). God’s promise to Abraham was that He would make him “a great nation” (Gen. 12:2) and that all peoples on earth will be blessed” through him (Gen.12:3). This covenant and the promise it involved was fulfilled through Isaac his beloved

son and also through Ishmael, who also became the progenitor of a nation (Gen.21: 13). Isaac, Abraham’s true heir became the channel through which God intended to bless “all nations on earth” (Gen.22:18). The original covenant God made with Abraham (Gen.12:2,3) was renewed and reaffirmed later (Gen. 15: 18-21; 22: 15-20).

Abraham thus became not only the Father of the Hebrews (Israel) but also the great ancestor of Jesus who came to the world through Abrahamic and Davidic line (Matt. 1:1). Jesus, the Messiah came not only for the descendants of Abraham (Jews) but also for those outside the scope of the covenant God made with Abraham’s descendantsat Sinai. St. Paul explains this clearly in Galatians when he cites the Abrahamic covenant and its implications for the gentiles and asserts that the gentiles are also involved in the blessing God gave to Abrahams. “All nations will be blessed through you”(Gal.3: 7- 9). That gospel (good news), Paul says, was announced to Abraham (Gal.3:8). The apostle Paul also states categorically that all those who rely on

3. Churches grow stronger through worship.

4. Churches grow broader through ministry.

5. Churches grow larger through evangelism.

RICK WARREN

NOVEMBER - 2014

7

revive renewing and enriching life

faith- rather than the works of the law – are the children of Abraham, regardless of their racial background (Gal.3:7).

From these passages it is clear that God’s plan of salvation included all racial groups, in the Abrahamic covenant and blessing. The terminology of the church, however, is absent.

The

architect of the Church who said “I will build my Church” began his building activity using believers as “living stones” to construct the spiritual house. On the Day of Pentecost, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those who were waiting in the upper room, the Church became a visible entity.

NOVEMBER - 2014

8

• The Sinaitic Covenant

The descendants of Abraham who were delivered from the Egyptian bondage through the blood of the Passover lamb (Exo.12) “baptized” by the crossing the red sea (1Cor. 10:1,2) sustained by manna from heaven and water from the rock (1.Cor. 10:4) finally came to mount Sinai after three months’ journey.

At Sinai they had an unforgettable encounter with God. There, God gave them the Law through the mediation of Moses. The law which covered every aspect of their personal and community life included the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments (Exo.19:f). Instruction for the construction of the tabernacle were also given (Exo. 25-31). The significance of Sinai was that Israel became a covenant community chosen by God to worship the true and only God, radiate God’s glory by being his witness (Exo. 19: 2; Isa. 49: 6; 60: 6; 44:8 etc.).

The old Israel chosen by God to be a special people and a holy nation foreshadows the “new Israel”- the Church, redeemed by Christ the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5: 7) and commissioned

by Christ to serve as his witness and a royal priesthood in the world (Acts.1: 8; 1Pet.2:9).

While we can see a typological significance in the experience pf the old Israel, it is interesting to note that they were never called an ekklesia (church) in the Old Testament. The Septuagint (The Greek translation of the O.T.) however, used the word to refer to the congregation of Israel. Stephen the proto-martyr used this in his speech to refer to the old Israel – “the ekklesia in the wilderness” (Acts 7: 38). They were a “church in the wilderness”, worshipping God through sacrifices and offerings and experiencing God’s “glory cloud (shekinah) and fiery pillars which symbolized the presence of God with them.

This, I believe, can be a good description of the Church in the world today – living in the desert and moving forward as pilgrims to reach the heavenly destination, while at the same time witnessing and impacting others to worship the true God.

b. In the New Testament.

The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was anticipated and foreshadowed in the Old Testament through the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants and in the organizational structuring of the nation of Israel as a theocratic nation to bless the nations, became a concrete reality when the Messiah came to the world with a specific mission.

He began his ministry with the announcement of the Kingdom of God and manifesting the nature of the kingdom through miracles and signs. He declared his mission on earth through powerful statements which constitute the foundation for our understanding of the Church. Just two of these statements need to be examined: 1.) The Nazareth Manifesto (Lk. 4: 18-21).

At the outset of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus went to the synagogue in Nazareth, as his custom was, and read from the scroll of Isaiah that passage dealing with the messianic mission.

Labelled as the “Nazareth Manifesto” by New Testament scholars, this prophecy unfolds the mission of Christ: good news to the poor, freedom to the captives, eye sight to the blind, release for the oppressed and the year of jubilee. Then Jesus announced boldly “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (4: 21). By this Jesus meant that he is the “anointed one”, Isaiah spoke of and that his mission would be characterized by deliverance of various kinds which will bestow the favour of God on people. Even though Jesus did not use the word “Church” in this context, he implied that these components will be present in the dispensation of the Church. From the Book of Acts we learn that these elements were present in the ministry of the apostolic Church.

2.) The Petrine Confession and Jesus’ declaration.

When Jesus demanded a personal confession and declaration of faith from his beloved disciples, while they were in the region of Caesarea Philippi, Peter answered without any hesitation, “you are the Messiah, the son of the living God” (Matt. 16:18). Responding to this faith statement Jesus told Peter that he was truly blessed because of the revelation he got straight from the Father. Jesus went on to say that he came to earth with the mission of building a Church for himself and that Peter also will have a share in that mission.

The Roman Catholic Church interprets this statement of Christ quite differently. The Greek text of Matt. 16: 18 uses two words 'petros' and

revive renewing and enriching life

'Petra' (you are Peter (Petros, a piece of rock) and on this rock Petra, a rock bed) I will build my Church). The Catholic Church developed the doctrines of the “primacy of Peter” and the “apostolic succession” which made Peter as the first bishop (Pope) and all the other Popes as his successors. The Bible makes it very clear that the true foundation and cornerstone of the Church is Christ himself (Matt. 21: 42; 1Cor. 3: 11). God also used human instruments like “apostles and prophets” in the building of the Church, “with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). The apostle Peter never claimed any primacy for himself, but referring to the Church as the “spiritual house” he affirmed the truth that Christ, the “stone” and the “rock” alone is the “cornerstone” of this house (1Per. 2: 4-8).

The architect of the Church who said “I will build my Church” began his building activity using believers as “living stones” to construct the spiritual house. On the Day of Pentecost, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those who were waiting in the upper room, the Church became a visible entity. The Spirit welded them into a community of grace. Their spiritual life was characterized by prayer, worship, fellowship, breaking of bread, witness etc. (Acts. 2: 42- 47).

The ripple that began in Jerusalem continued to expand to the Greco-Roman world through the missionary activities of Paul and others. That is the story we get from the Book of Acts.

3.) The “Mystery” of the Church (Eph.3: 2-6) The apostle Paul wanted to share with the Ephesian believers the mystery which was revealed to him. The heart of that revelation is that the Church is not a mono-ethnic community – like the Jewish community, but a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multinational community, brought together by God into a living body. This has been made possible through the work of Christ on the cross, by which he pulled down all walls and broke all barriers which divided Jews and gentiles and effected reconciliation (Eph. 2: 11- 16). Therefore, all have “access to the Father by one Spirit” (Eph. 2: 18). This is the beauty of the Church, crafted by the architect of the universe. Truly, a trophy of God’s grace! c. The Church: local and Universal.

Taking the literal meaning of Jesus’ statement “I will build my Church” (ekklesia) we may infer that he was referring to the corporate body of believers scattered throughout the world. The Pauline concept of the Church as “body” (1 Cor.

11: 29 etc.) which is made up of many parts, yet constituting an organic unity, reinforces the idea of the oneness of the Church. Jesus prayed for the unity of the future believers: “that all of them may be one, just as you are in me and I am in you” (Jn.17:.21). In Acts 9:31 when Luke speaks of the “Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria”, we get the idea of the oneness of the Church, in spite of differences in locality and other diversities. From God’s perspective, there is only one Church, one gathering of all under the headship of Christ. The body of Christ is indeed a unity in diversity, bound together by the cord of the Spirit.

While the above picture of the Church as a universal body is very much biblical, the leading New Testament scholars point out that in the N. T. ekklesia is always described and ordered in terms of its particular, local form. Wherever there is a gathering of true believers, there is an ekklesia – whether it is Jerusalem or Antioch or Ephesus or any other part of the globe. What matters is not the location, but the common bond by which believers are connected to each other as Paul said: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4: 4-6).

Today we have different patterns of Church organization and administration. The concept of a universal Church headed by one human leader is foreign to the scriptures. The pattern we learn from the churches of the first century is that of local church which is autonomous in terms of administration of gifts and ministries. The Church at Antioch, to cite an example, was not under the church of Jerusalem, even though it was the first centre of Christianity. Yet there was cooperation and mutual encouragement between the two.

The famine relief which Antioch sent to Jerusalem (Acts. 11: 29,30) was a token of their fellowship and compassion and not a sign of Jerusalem’s superiority over Antioch.

The Church, which was anticipated and foreshadowed in the Old Testament became a visible reality on the Day of Pentecost. The one who said “I will build my Church” continues to build it using his instruments here on earth. The Church, which St. Paul describes as “the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15) must be committed to proclaim the truth of the gospel until the whole world will hear and experience the salvation Jesus offers freely to everyone who believes.

I believe there are too many practitioners in the church who are not believers.

C. S. Lewis

NOVEMBER - 2014

9

revive renewing and enriching life

Dr. J.N. Manokaran A Civil Engineer by profession. God called him and his family to be missional leader in Haryana as cross cultural missionaries for eleven years. Since, 1997 they returned back to Tamil Nadu to help missionaries and pastors to build their capacities by teaching, training and writing.

The

purpose for existence of organizations is to meet the needs of the people.

The needy people were cared for.

In that, there was alleg- ation about discrimination, hence effective mechanism was introduced.

Neither Organism nor Organization; The Church is an indescribable mystery

Introduction

"The Church

is an organism and not an organization," is a common statement made by many leaders in the Christian community.

There are some Christian vocabulary that are not directly derived from the Scripture. Words like trinity or 'mission' is commonly used but not in the Bible. The church as organism is also similar word not used in bible.

Organization of New Testament Church

NOVEMBER - 2014

10

The New Testament Church organizes itself in the first few chapters recorded in the Acts of Apostles. On the Day of Pentecost itself 3000 members were added to the disciples. (Acts 2:41) Listing the names itself is a character

of an organization. The church gathered in specific places - in homes. There was a need for co-ordination and communication, which is again a character of an organization. The purpose for existence of organizations is to meet the needs of the people. The needy people were cared for. In that, there was allegation about discrimination, hence effective mechanism was introduced. (Acts 6:1) Conflict resolution happened. Criteria for identifying the widows and listing them for help is another job done by an organization. Financial management was also there as people gave liberally, sometimes all they had. The Church at Antioch sent out missionaries and they came back and reported what they did or accomplished.

(Acts 13) Commissioning and accountability is found in this.

There are some good features in both

revive renewing and enriching life

organization and organism. In this context, from the human perspective, it is better to integrate the best of an organization and an organism for the church to fulfill the task in the world. The Church has to minister in an imperfect world. The Church is not perfect, but moving towards it as the Coming of the Lord draws near.

Flexibility and Creativity The Church is both flexible and creative. In that sense the church is not an organization but organism. Organization tends to be consistent with rules, with zero tolerance for deviations.

Such organizations cannot create space for creativity. At the same time the church cannot be recklessly flexible, causing chaos by disbanding all rules, norms and laws. Out of the box thinking is needed to reach the uttermost part of the earth and bring the Kingdom of God on this earth.

Sensitive not sentimental Organism has the capacity to be sensitive and also become sentimental - overwhelmed by emotions. An organization in contrast is rather insensitive and could respond in a familiar and predictable pattern. The Church is sensitive like organism but also structured and consistent with the attributes of God in the response. The Church reflects the glory of God.

Hierarchy vs. service An organization functions according to hierarchy. It is command and control model of management. In contrast, an organism functions as one unit and has definite role for each part.

Each part does work voluntarily and does not exceed the parameters. The parts of the body like heart or brain or kidney should fulfill its part.

The Church has hierarchy as well as definite role or service or mission for each part.

Self initiated vs. external motivation An organism could be self motivated. Also it has the capacity to respond to environment and challenges from outside. An organization generally needs motivation from outside. The person who controls the organization may respond to the environment according to his/ her orientation. The Church is an organism if this criteria is applied. Paul writes, Christ love compels us. (II Cor 5:14-15) The Church also responds to external contexts. For example, a tsunami could galvanize the church to be involved in relief and rehabilitation work. The Church responds to external realities because of the inner conviction and motivation that comes from the Christ's love.

The

general understanding is that an organism has only a vertical accountability, i.e. the parts of the body is only accountable to the central authority: Head. An organization has accountability at appropriate levels and is collectively accountable to the top management.

NOVEMBER - 2014

11

revive renewing and enriching life

The

Church demonstrated the love, grace and power of Lord Jesus Christ in the world.

Organization could have temporal goals and organism could have mundane purpose, only the Church could have eternal goals and purpose, as the Founder is Eternal God.

Grace vs. Law

Decay, Defeat and Death

An organization functions according to law and regulations. Exceptions are rare. Organism as a living entity has the capacity to demonstrate mercy and grace. The Church has rules, regulations and discipline. If a person does not confirm to the norms of the organization he/she could be disciplined according to prescribed procedures.

The Church could help that individual to change or transformed as there is love and discipline.

The nurturing environment in the church could provide spiritual healing. So, the Church is unique that it combines organization and organism.

Organization or any living organism on the earth faces decay and defeat. All living organisms in the world die and perish. The Church does not decay, instead grows from glory to glory. The Church is victorious and can never be defeated.

The Church would be caught up to Heaven and be the Bride of Christ forever and ever.

Judgment vs. Redemption Organizations are rigid and execute judgment with no option for forgiveness. The Church is an organism that could provide redemption and nurture redeemed people. The Church could provide several opportunities for a person to reform, repent and be transformed. Exhortation, inspiring models, loving discipline, nurturing atmosphere, and accountability are unique features of a church.

Horizontal and Vertical accountability The general understanding is that an organism has only a vertical accountability, i.e. the parts of the body is only accountable to the central authority: Head. An organization has accountability at appropriate levels and is collectively accountable to the top management.

Again, the Church is integration of both kinds of accountability. Individual believers are accountable to the Local church. There is mutual accountability. The missionaries who were sent out by the Church at Antioch gave reports. When there was a conflict regarding circumcision, there was discussion, debate and decision. If the two groups claimed that they are right as they have direct connection with the Head, there would not have been consensus. Today, there are multiple denominations because, they consider Church as organism and neglect mutual accountability.

Bond of chains or bond of love

NOVEMBER - 2014

12

An organization is connected by links, like a chain. That connection is with nearest section of the organization. Organism is not connected by links but a unifying aspect. A body has blood permeating all cells. The blood supplies oxygen to all parts of the body. This bondage may lack in an organization. Paul writes that we are bonded by love and peace. (Gal 3:14 and Epehsians 4:3).

The Spirit of God unifies all members into One.

Eternal Leader An institution or an organization can have a leader for a certain period of time. After that period they retire or die. A new leader has to take over.

However, the Church is different. There is one and only Head forever and ever: Lord Jesus Christ.

Growth is Supernatural for the Church An organization could grow by recruiting new people. An organism could grow or multiply by reproduction. However, the Church grows because God adds people to the Church. (Acts 2:47) Yes, the Church should organize evangelism outreach, send out missionaries, preach the gospel, baptize people, take care of poor and needy, speak out for the voiceless and grow in fellowship. However, the conversion and addition is not from human will but from divine decree.

(John 1:12,13)

Organization, Organism, Organizer If the Church is an organization, then it reflects the general characteristics of an organization. If the Church is an organism, it would reflect the traits of an organism. However the Church reflects the characteristics of the Organizer, Founder, Lord Jesus Christ. The Church demonstrated the love, grace and power of Lord Jesus Christ in the world. Organization could have temporal goals and organism could have mundane purpose, only the Church could have eternal goals and purpose, as the Founder is Eternal God.

Challenge The Church is both an organization and organism, in that sense Church is Supernatural.

However it is not unnatural. The Church is both visible and invisible. The Church is Heavenly, but temporarily engaged in the World. Yes, the Church is a Mystery and cannot be defined and illustrated with worldly analogies and examples.

No language could capture the definition of the Church. We can always rejoice, be grateful and worship the Lord for including us in His Body the Church.

revive renewing and enriching life

Dr. T. P. Varghese Bible Teacher, Pastor

CHURCH-THE

SPIRTUAL BODY AANATOMY

OF CHRIST:

The word

'Church' is derived from the Greek words like 'ekklesia' and 'kuriakon' provide the meaning 'Assembly', belongs to the Lord respectively. The Malayalam word 'Sabha' also represents an Assembly which has no bearing of a Christian church necessarily. In this modern age, the structure of a church building is being equated with the church and not necessarily the people gathered for the worship. People go to church not only for worship but also for identity.

This is become significantly true not only of Episcopalian churches, but even also evangelicals including Pentecostals. The church is no longer looked upon as the sole embodiment of the divine presence and activity. In this article, the emphasis is given to the Pauline understanding of ‘CHURCH’ as the body of Christ. This is explained through 1 Cor. 12-12-26. This can perhaps be the best biblical image for the church as it is portrayed by Paul.

The image of the church as the body of Christ reveals that the main focus of the action of the church is on this earth. It can include both the

local and universal activities. This is what Paul reiterates in 1 Cor. 12:26,27. “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it”.

The

image of the church as the body of Christ reveals that the main focus of the action of the church is on this earth.

A. The Anatomy of the Body of Christ Paul’s concern here is expressed mainly from 1 Cor. 12: 12-26. He expresses it after discussing the distribution of spiritual gifts to the members of the body of Christ. The main concern of the passage is that the body is one, though with many members, having a unity in diversity. The emphasis is not on unity rather it is on diversity by which the best use of unity could be maintained.

Even though the body is one, it does not consist of one member but of many, thus arguing for diversity (12-24). Then the natural question will be, how is this possible in the midst of diversity?

If the body is one how is the diversity possible?

If diversity is to be maintained, how can unity can be achieved? To answer this logical and hard question, Paul answers in ver. 13 that all of them were immersed in and made to drink the

NOVEMBER - 2014

13

revive renewing and enriching life

Church attendance is as vital to a disciple as a transfusion of rich, healthy blood to a sick man.

Dwight L. Moody

NOVEMBER - 2014

14

same Spirit. The one body is not one member but many members, in the Spirit of God and drinking from the same Spirit, functioning as one, though existing as many members. What a divine activity! The explanation returns to the imagery of the church as the body of Christ as it is used in 1 Cor.10:17 and 11:29. It is expected of every believer to participate in the Lord’s Supper discerning that the body of Christ is one and not divided.

The image of the body of Christ emphasizes the close connection of the believers with Christ. Christ is the head of this body (Col. 1:18) of which believers are parts or members. All things including all believers, are brought under one head, Christ Eph. 1:10). Christ, the head takes care of all believers and nourishes them (Col.2:19). As the head, He not only takes care of them, but also guides, rules and even corrects them (Col. 2: 9,10).

The body imagery was common in the ancient world and was therefore probably well known to the Corinthians. Paul’s concern here is essential unity, not uniformity. His intention of unity is to be seen from a different angle. It is not that all are becoming one as a single unity of monstrosity but a unity comprehending the diversity working towards the unity of function.

The Corinthian error was the expectation of uniformity. Uniformity is not spirituality. In this modern era, the Christian churches try hard to bring uniformity without unity. They falsely think that it is the uniformity that God wants.

For to achieve uniformity, modern techniques are used in the churches and between likeminded denominations. Even Pentecostals try for uniformity without unity, hence the so called UPFs without unity among them. It was unfortunate to witness such events in many places and often the leaders take active roles for such instances. In the beginning they may work well, but as they go by many of them fall apart.

However, this may not be true for all of them.

Paul was not concerned of uniformity, but true unity in his passage. There is no true unity without diversity. The church is the shortened form for the body of Christ.

The image of the body of Christ speaks of the “interconnectedness between all the persons who make up the church” says Erickson (Christian Theology, 1994, p. 1037). Christian faith and life is not isolated. Paul emphasizes the interconnectedness of each believer to complete the unity in Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). As mentioned earlier this is made possible through the drinking from the one Spirit. Gifts are diverse but not

the Spirit; therefore there is no disunity in the body of Christ. Taking gifts as the basic topic of discussion in 1 Cor.12, diversity in the unity is further strengthened. No one gift is for every one which means no one person has all the gifts.

Each member needs others and each is needed by the others, hence diversity demands the unity.

Each believer encourages and builds up others in Christ. There in Christ, the old distinctions have been obliterated, but not in the sense that the distinctions have no more significance. It is the significance that gives them value as distinctions.

In effect, the life in the Spirit eliminated the old distinctions, hence they have become one body.

Even though, the body is one by the common experience of the Spirit (v.13), the body itself is not the one but many parts. The one body is not the one member, rather composed of many constituent parts.

Paul goes further in ver. 17&19 that all members are necessary, if there is to be a body.

If one member grows to the size of a body, it is not a body but a monster. The “bodiness” is then lost. Every expression then will be of a monster and not of a member. The activity also will be monstrous in nature. Body always must have the character of many members. In many churches we see such monster signs due to ‘one –man’ member hierarchy which produces monstrous actions. This is also true of many denominations and organizations. The member-unity will not be seen active there. Only the body can exercise various gifts. Diversity in unity is the emphasis of Pauline body-imagery.

In Pauline explanation of the body there are many members like legs, hands, eyes, ears etc. Through the analogy of the body, Paul emphasizes the need of all members. The fullpledged function of the body is possible only with all members. The diversity in the body is God’s own design.

1 Cor. 12:18 teaches that God has arranged the parts of the body, every one of them,

revive renewing and enriching life

just as God wanted them to be. The very order we see in the body is also God’s plan. Diversity is not an end in itself, but is to function within their essential unity.

Through change of metaphors, still using the same body parts, Paul proceeds further to the need of existing together in the same body.

Some people of superior rank (either in their own thinking or in the worldly calculation) think that they can get along without others in this body of Christ. But Paul says “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are the more indispensable”.

For example, the internal organs of the body by nature, are weak, but we cannot exist without them. They are surely indispensable. Crucial to this argument is the fact that they only seem to be weaker. Such apparent weakness has no relationship to their real value and necessity to the body. Remember! Appearances are deceiving.

If, in any case, one removes such an organ because it appeared weak, the body would cease to be the whole and will stop to function. This is true also of the Church.

Paul continued his change of metaphors, though not named individually, to sexual organs on which we bestow greater honour, so they have greater decorum. This is the secret of the dignity of the body of Christ. Those organs are important for the existence of the body, yet they are not exhibited as others publically. Paul tries to educate that bodily appearances are not the important factors,

rather they are deceiving. 1 Cor. 12: 25, 26 teach us that the body is not composed not for show, but they are composed to have mutual concern for one another, not neglecting any member of the body. The activity of the member of the body should not be for the annihilation of another member in the same body, but for the strengthening and building up of each other member, and thus through each member the total body. If the building up of the body is not taking place even to one weak member of the body, then the function of the body member is not according to the will of God and the Word of God. No member of the body is to be inferior to another. Both weak and strong, honourable or less honourable are in their own way needed to make the body, otherwise, there will be no body but only a monster.

Discussing the reason for God composing the body is not for contrasting each other (v.2124). This is why parts that appear to be lesser important get special treatment, since all are so vital to one another. God has arranged all members in such a way that there should be no strife among the members of the body who mutually need each other in order to function as a body. In other words, God’s concern for the body is equal. It is difficult for the body (church) to function properly when one part aches. The body may function with aches, but not properly.

For example, when a person gets severe head ache or tooth pain, and if that person is attending a test or a final exam the next day morning, his or her performance will not be satisfactory. This is also true of a member getting the joy, and not properly the part of the body of Christ, the total body, the church will not be able to enjoy or share the joy. Paul is referring to this in 1Cor. 11:14. How can the body of Christ, the church enjoy the Lord’ supper when lack of the unity is experienced in the body?

Conclusion:The metaphor of the body for the church is the suitable one for the present scenario of the church. This example of the body is readymade for the present time. Paul’s concern is for diversity-mutual concern in the body as in the case of spiritual gifts. The singular focus on one gift or selected couple of them by some Charismatic preachers or churches are cotrary to this. If a chance is given, they opt for prophecy, healings, and neglect the gifts of the word of wisdom or word of knowledge and so on. There are some who accept only cerebral gifts. By doing this bifurcation we destroy the diversity God intended for the body of Christ. Do not neglect the weak and lowly. Do not make monsters! Both will destroy the unity of the body of Christ.

The

activity of the member of the body should not be for the annihilation of another member in the same body, but for the strengthening and building up of each other member, and thus through each member the total body.

NOVEMBER - 2014

15

revive renewing and enriching life

Dr. Laji Paul Adjunct Faculty at IBC. Missions Leader and Bible Teacher in North India and beyond.

CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Jesus

came to this world and left us with the vision of the kingdom of God. He calls us to make the Kingdom our priority and, to make it our reason for existence.

Steve Jobs,

the founder of Apple Computers was instrumental in bringing about a revolution in the use of computers. Jobs realized the need for a management expert to see his vision becoming a reality. So he approached John Sculley, then President of Pepsi. John Sculley was highly paid and secure in his job and repeatedly turned down Job’s offer. However Job’s one question which compelled him to accept the offer was, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?” The rest is history. Jobs and Sculley did change the world.

Following Jesus is a call to discipleship. It is not about accumulating possessions or giving our spare time to God, which is like spending our lives on making sugared water. Jesus came to this world and left us with the vision of the kingdom of God. He calls us to make the Kingdom our priority and, to make it our reason for existence (Matthew 6.33). What does the Kingdom of God mean?

What are its implications for me as a disciple of Christ? What does it imply for the Church?

Understanding the Kingdom

NOVEMBER - 2014

16

Unlike the present, in most of history, the King or Queen was the supreme head of a country and it was the realm where only what they said mattered and what they wanted got done. This can help us to understand the “Kingdom”. It is the realm where the King gets what he wants to do. The Kingdom of God is where, what God wants gets done.

It is God’s reign breaking into history. It is the realm where God exercises His authority and sovereignty in a decisive way to restore his lost creation. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word 'malkuth' and the Greek word 'basileai' in the New Testament refers to the governance of a King. It is the realm in which God’s Reign can be experienced.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is about how one can be a part of God’s Reign. This Reign calls for individuals to reconcile with God, and His will to come into every aspect of life and society. It is the Kingdom of God invading this earth for the purpose of restoring the creation. When Jesus says to seek His Kingdom it means to make what God wants, our priority.

Interpretations of the Kingdom Two interpretations of the Kingdom found in the early Church are an eschatological and a noneschatological interpretation. For the early Church Fathers the Kingdom of God was exclusively eschatological. They saw the church as the present visible people of God on earth but the Kingdom as the rule of Christ on His return to the earth.

Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine interpreted the Kingdom of God as the visible ecclesiastical system rather than a future eschatological kingdom.

For the Reformers the kingdom was a reign of God in the hearts of the redeemed and was

revive renewing and enriching life

therefore essentially a religious concept and primarily a present reality.

The German theologian Albert Ritschl (18221889) defined the kingdom as “the organization of humanity through action inspired by love” or the moral unification of the human race through action prompted by universal love to our neighbour”. Ritschl’s explanation contradicts God’s word which speaks of the Kingdom as an initiative and activity of God rather than a human endeavour. A variety of definitions and interpretations compels us to study and understand the Kingdom on the basis of what it meant in the Old Testament and how Jesus presented it in the New Testament.

The Biblical idea of the Kingdom of God is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. The sovereign rule of God is seen in his creation which culminated in creating Adam and Eve in His own image and likeness. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were under the rule of God even as they exercised their dominion over the rest of the creation. After the fall of man we see God choosing Abraham and the promise that he and his descendants would be God’s people under His rule. God’s rule over Israel is seen when God gave them His law and made a covenant with them that they would be His people living in the land He would give them.

The Old Testament view of the Kingdom was based on what prophets, especially Daniel (Daniel 2:31-35 and Chapter 7) and Malachi (Malachi 4:1-6) predicted that God will dramatically intervene in human history and remove wickedness and establish His Kingdom.

Every element of the Old Testament's unfolding revelation of the kingdom leads to the Person of Jesus Christ come in the flesh. The kingdom of God has its objective reality in Him. Thus by looking at the theme of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament, we can establish a framework necessary to understand the New Testament basis of the Kingdom.

John the Baptist subscribed to the Old Testament view when he announced that the Kingdom of God was coming (Matthew 3:2). He makes it clear that the Messiah - Jesus Christ will baptize some with the Holy Spirit and they would experience the Kingdom of God while the others will be judged(Matthew 3:11-12).

Soon John was in prison, but those in power like Herod Antipas and the Roman Empire were continuing in their wickedness and oppression.

In the light of this, John saw that Jesus was not acting like the Messiah by ‘bringing in the Kingdom.’ Hence John the Baptist’s question – “Are you the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matthew 11:1-3) In Matthew Chapter 13 and Mark chapter 4 Jesus explains the mystery of the Kingdom He had come to proclaim. This mystery of the Kingdom is that the Kingly Messiah would come not only once but twice. The first coming was to break the power of Satan, sin and death. The second coming will bring about the crushing of God’s enemies and a time of peace. In between these two comings is a time of mercy for God’s grace and peace to be preached to the nations.

The Jewish expectation of God’s Kingdom was a dramatic intervention in human history, with the end of the Old Age and inauguration of the New. New Testament scholars talk about the Kingdom coming in two stages. Jesus in His first coming, inaugurated the Kingdom. The New has begun. Through the cross Jesus has secured victory over Satan, sin and death. His resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit are first fruits of the Age to Come.

Becoming a part of this Kingdom does not mean that our struggle with sin is over and there will be no more pain. It also does not mean favour and success in our ministry and mission. This will happen in the fullness of the Kingdom when Jesus comes. Hence we need to understand the tension of living in between the two comings of Jesus. This will only allow us to understand the challenges and struggles we face.

Kingdom in the New Testament

Church and the Kingdom

The New Testament has diverse teaching about the Kingdom. The Kingdom is a present reality (Matthew 11:28), and is a realm into which we enter now (Matthew 21:31). It is also referred to as a redemptive (Romans 14:17) and future blessing (1 Corinthians 15:50). In the Book of Acts we find Paul “Preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 28:30-31.

"The church" includes all disciples of Christ.

Personal faith is the fundamental basis of man’s relationship to the Kingdom of God. Those who respond become the disciples of the Kingdom of God. The community of such people is the Church. The Church refers to people, not to a building. Each local group of believers is a church.

Christ loves the Church and has given Himself for her (Ephesians 5:25). The Bible clearly teaches the

Kingdom in the Old Testament

Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, there a church of God exists, even if it swarms with many faults.

John Calvin

NOVEMBER - 2014

17

revive renewing and enriching life

God

has given us a wonderful relationship with Him through the discipline of petitionary prayer through which we constantly seek His name to be hallowed and His Kingdom to come in all realms of our lives. This emphasis is significant for mission because it reflects our perspective of the nature of God and His relationship to this world.

NOVEMBER - 2014

18

need for believers to meet together (Hebrews 10:25). When believers are committed to pray, meditate God’s word and fellowship with each other, the proclamation and extension of the Kingdom becomes a reality.

In the midst of the struggles of this age, it is the Church, the body of Christ which is called to be the agent of God’s Kingdom. The community of God has to flesh out the kingdom so that we remind each other that we are not alone.

God has entrusted the Church with the message of the Kingdom. In the words of Peter Wagner, “The most effective evangelistic methodology under heaven is planting new churches.” This is because the Church has been entrusted with the good news of the coming Kingdom of God and it is to reflect what the Kingdom is here and now. The Church is responsible through its love and community to proclaim the good news of forgiveness and reconciliation available through Jesus and offer a glimpse of the coming Kingdom by addressing the works of darkness in the world.

Implications of the Kingdom of God for Christ’s Disciples We need to understand the revelation of the Kingdom as revealed by Jesus. While the Kingdom of God is yet to come in power and great glory, it has been innuagrated in this evil Age, when Christ came to this world delivering people from the power of Satan and sin. As God’s people we are called to assault the Kingdom of Satan with the gospel of the Kingdom through our lives, proclamation and deeds.

As Disciples of Christ we often expect to see God’s dramatic intervention on issues of evil and wickedness we are confronted with. When this does not happen we revert to two extremes.

Either we piously resign to the status quo of wickedness and evil structures around them or passively wait for the eschatological intervention

by God in human history.

The nature of God and His relationship to the world is such that He seeks the victory of truth and removal of evil. Often as Disciples of Christ, we easily resign ourselves to unjust practices, systems and structures of our fallen world. But God has given us a wonderful relationship with Him through the discipline of petitionary prayer through which we constantly seek His name to be hallowed and His Kingdom to come in all realms of our lives. This emphasis is significant for mission because it reflects our perspective of the nature of God and His relationship to this world.

This in turn will reflect in our looking to God in

prayer, beyond our petty needs to the larger picture of life with which God is concerned.

Jesus taught us, that biblical prayer is about seeking the Kingdom of God. Yes we face incompleteness and insufficiencies in the present age but we long for the completeness and sufficiency of the Kingdom. That is why we are asked to pray “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

Implications of the Kingdom for the Church In Matthew Chapter 24, verse 14 we see the mandate of the Kingdom. It tells us that Christ’s return is dependent on the fact that each and every people group is given an opportunity to respond to the testimony of the gospel. In fact this link or close connection is seen between this truth as found in Matthew 24:14 and the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20. Both these verses emphasize worldwide evangelization until the Second coming of Jesus. Hence we must continue to proclaim the gospel that God has triumphed over the three enemies that have ruined people throughout history: Satan, sin and death. God is holding this part of history open so that nations are invited to the Kingdom and His return is hastened.

This gives hope and focus to the Church for meaningfully engaging itself in the task of world evangelization. The truth that confronts us is that God is holding history open so that no people group is denied the opportunity of responding to the testimony of the gospel. Our obedience too is crucial. Since the return of Jesus is dependent on proclaiming the gospel to all peoples, we refuse to get intimidated with evil and despair around us, instead proactively propagate and live out the truth that God’s Kingdom has entered into this Evil Age and we never forget that it is through His Church God extends His Kingdom in this world.

Conclusion The Kingdom of God is God’s reign that has broken into our world in and through Jesus. It is God’s desire through Jesus to reclaim what Adam lost to Satan. Although the Kingdom has been innuagrated in this evil age it is yet to come in its fullness. Satan sin and death are always at work to discourage us and destroy our faith. However the power of God’s Kingdom is greater and will prevail.

King Jesus our Lord and Master calls us to place the Kingdom at the centre of our lives.

Are we busy making sugared water? Or are we available to take up the mandate of Jesus to change the world? What is our choice?

revive renewing and enriching life

Dr. V.V.Thomas Professor, History of Christianity, Union Biblical Seminary, Bibewadi, Pune.

‘Church’ Through the Centuries: A Historical Perspective

Introduction

Jesus, the founder and the corner stone of the Church made His famous utterance that

He will build His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Mt 16:18). How do we define that which Jesus said He will build?

Who belongs to that Church? What has been the presumed identity and the self-perception of the Church? How the identity of the Church has been perceived in the early Church and through the centuries until our present day context?

These are questions that have not found any ‘one single’ acceptable answer in the history of the Church so much so that there has not been one single or perfect model of the Church or the way it has been understood and interpreted through the centuries.

While it is true that there has not been one single and definite understanding of what constitute the Church or who constitute it, I like the way Miroslav Volf explains as to what constitute the Church. Volf says, “A Church is a community of people who congregate in order to call on, to testify and to confess Christ the liberator… They do not need to be characterized by a certain grade of personal or social holiness in order to be called the Church. The Church … lives solely on the sanctifying presence of Christ, who promised to be wherever people congregate in His name… The Church is therefore not a club of the perfected but a community of people who

confess to be sinners and pray: debita dimitte (forgive us our sins). Any group which gathers around the one Christ, around God in his salvific devotion to men, who celebrate in him their liberator and Lord, who is open to all people and where all people have the same dignity, such a group is a Church because Christ has promised to be present among them” Although like many others Volf may not be perfect in his understanding of the Church, I believe his views shed light up on the fact that the ‘Church is a democratic community of the equals’ where one is not above the other but all stand on the same platform and seek for God’s mercy and forgiveness. This understanding can take away so much of our arrogance and exclusive kind of attitude whereby we cast the other out from our spirituality and from our hearts.

THE NATURE AND IDENTITY OF THE EARLY CHURCH (THE PRE-CONSTANTINE CHURCH) The primitive Church when it appeared in the first century had to find its identity in the Jewish world. The Christian Church was the ‘new Israel’ a reform movement within Judaism in contrast to the ‘old Israel’ and this attitude made them to see themselves not ‘in relation to’ but ‘overagainst’ the Jews. However their self-definition/s that they were the ‘new Israel’ led to tensions not

‘Church

is a democratic community of the equals’ where one is not above the other but all stand on the same platform and seek for God’s mercy and forgiveness.

This understanding can take away so much of our arrogance and exclusive kind of attitude whereby we cast the other out from our spirituality and from our hearts.

NOVEMBER - 2014

19

revive renewing and enriching life

The True Church can never fail.

For it is based upon a rock.

T.S. Eliot

only with the Jews but within the Church itself.

The early Christians felt that they were the Easter community of the exalted Messiah. The Church faced the same situation again when it left the fold of Palestinian Judaism and entered into the wider world of religion and cultures. The Church entered into the Graeco-Roman world with the understanding that “there is no longer Jew and Greek” (Eph 2:13-16, Rom 10:12, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:28 etc). As far as the Church was concerned it was a fatal proclamation because it suddenly abolished its old identities as part of the chosen people, the old Israel. This was almost the end of toleration by the Jewish people within Israel of this new sect called Christians. It was the launching of the Church’s mission to the larger world. It was a kind of relocation of Christianity from one world to another. It was the beginning of Church’s world mission. Now the major question was with regard to the Church’s identity and mission in a society of pagan religions and Greek philosophies. Where will the Christian teachings fit in the philosophical traditions of the Greeks? Here again there was no one single approach to face the issue. Many Christians held on to Paul’s instruction “not to be yoked together with unbelievers”. ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem’ was the attitude of many within the Church. At the same time there were others in the Church who saw Christianity and Greek philosophy not in terms of opposition but in terms of similarity. They held to the Johannene understanding that Jesus Christ is the ‘light that lights every human being’ coming into the world.

Justin was very positive in his evaluation of Greek philosophy. He says “Christ is the Logos of whom every race of men partakes and those who live rationally are Christians even if thought to be atheists… Whatever things have been rightly said by any one belongs to us Christians”. This approach was in a sense a positive way of defining Christianity in relation to Greek philosophies and cultures. For such people Christian identity was not ‘over against’ but it was relational.

The Identity of the Church in the Post-Constantine Period

NOVEMBER - 2014

20

Moving on from the early part of the Church into the period following the conversion of Constantine in the early part of the fourth century, the whole face of Christianity was changed from that of the lowly into an affluent people in the society. The Jesus that we encounter in the Gospels is one who came into the world as ‘Good news’ to the Poor. He Himself says that the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He has been anointed to preach the good news to the

poor. We read that Jesus always lived His life in solidarity with the poor. He was accused by the Pharisees and the Sadducees that He was a friend of sinners, tax collectors, publicans and so on. This Jesus was spat upon, mocked, smitten, arrested, tortured, and finally crucified. Throughout His earthly life he demonstrated that He was a ‘servant king’ (Mk 10:45), a suffering servant (Mt 8:17), and a king with crown of thorns. Not only that Jesus was tortured and crucified, even His disciples had to face the same fate their master faced. According to tradition, except for one disciple all the other eleven disciples became martyrs for their master.

In fact the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ was persecuted severely until the early part of the fourth century. Starting with Nero in AD 64, the persecution continued until the time of Constantine in 312. However, the situation radically changed when Constantine declared himself a Christian after his victory over Maxentius in 312 and at the age of twenty four, Constantine was the supreme leader of the West - the first Christian emperor. In the same year he published what is known as the Edict of Milan, which gave the Church freedom of worship and returned to the Church all her properties that had been confiscated. Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He aided the Church and the clergy with public grants. He sought the peace of the Church; The Church came under the umbrella of the state, a change that was to radically change the entire history of the Church from then on. The persecuted Church now became the protected Church; The Church that was hitherto insulted now became a powerful Church; it became rich with the blessing of the emperor himself. The Church had ceased to be regarded as an enemy of the state and was now in alliance with it. If being a member of a Church was dangerous, now it became advantageous. The Church had become an accepted and important part of the richest and most powerful empire in the ancient world. The Jesus of Nazareth who could not find a place to lay His head is now ‘residing in massive Cathedrals’. The Messiah who was crowned with thorns on his head is now crowned with gold. The humble image of Christ the Good Shepherd is now replaced with Christ the King.

As far as my thinking goes, probably the single most issue that the Church struggled with for about one thousand years, almost till the reformation, was the Church-state relationship following the conversion of Constantine. Of course the Church state issue has always been there from the time the Romans crucified

revive renewing and enriching life

Christ, but more technically from the time of Constantine. In fact the Church must have been grateful that the persecution has now come to an end, but they were not aware of the dangers of the sate getting into the affairs of the Church. The new situation into which the Church ‘fell’ began to deeply influence every part of its existence in the world. Although Christians remained as the people of God even after the conversion of Constantine, they lived, thought, worshipped, governed and conducted themselves very differently from those Christians who had to pass through the shadow and the fiery period of persecution. Three areas in which these changes appeared most notably were: a) The government of the Church; b) The Church’s relationship with the state; c) The way in which the worship of the Church was changed.

Before the Church came under the state, there was no empire-wide structure of government for the Church. The Church had more of a local character and its authority was also local. There were monarchial bishops in larger cities and they had significant influence on the Churches that came under their spiritual care. There was fellowship and interaction among the Churches in different places. However, there was no common government, no common Church law, no one ‘head’ of the Church other than the founder of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ.

As the Church came under the state the above mentioned characteristics of the preConstantine Church changed drastically. Now with the emperor beginning to take control of the situation, he began to call for synods and councils to deal with different issues in the Church.

From now on holding of major Church councils became common in the life of the Church. These councils became important factors in creating common belief systems of the universal Church; it promoted unity of the Church and to some extend some order and regulations within the larger set up of the imperial Church. Another major factor during the post Constantine period was the development of a clear distinction between the laity and the clergy. The laity who were the majority in the Church had no office; the clergy were Church officials who were set apart from the laity by ordination. As time went by the entire function of the Church fell into the hands of the clergy, a situation that made their office more ‘powerful’ with lasing implications.

There were now lower clergy, higher clergy, and the episcopate.

The lower clergy consisted of those who would help in the services of the worship and other areas

in the Church. They were the sub-deacons who formed the secretarial staff of the bishop. The higher clergy were the deacons and presbyters.

The care of the poor, originally entrusted to the deacons, was now discharged by the lower clergy. Deacons became the chief administrative assistants to the bishops. Presbyters conducted services and administered sacraments; they were the spiritual arm of the bishops. Later these presbyters were called as priests.

The episcopate consisted of the bishops of the Church. The lowest in rank was the country bishop. Next in order was the city bishop. Both the country and the city bishop were subject to the archbishop, called metropolitan in the east, who was the bishop of the capital city of province.

The archbishops in turn were under the authority of the patriarchal bishops. At the beginning of the 4th century there were three patriarchal bishops via the bishop of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria.

Later when Constantine made Constantinople as the capital of the eastern empire, the bishop of that city became a patriarch. At the council of Chalcedon in 451, the bishop of Jerusalem was similarly honored and became a patriarch. The patriarch of Rome from the beginning been called the Pope and has been called that way until the present day. This has been the hierarchical order of the Church that was developed which turned into powerful offices that mostly became corrupt as the Church entered into the medieval period.

The situation has remained the same even to this day wherein the institution called Church has become worse than some of our political parties fighting with muscle power and man power.

The Identity of the Church in the Medieval Period The Church after the conversion of Constantine (especially after the 6th century) gained not only spiritual but the actual responsibility to run the government especially in the western part of the Roman Empire. However, when the tribal chiefs in Europe captured power, they were now called kings. These kings were not happy that the Church was governing the state. They wanted to regain the power not only over the state but even over the Church which became wealthy. In fact by the time of Reformation, the Church owned more than half of the land in Europe. Power was based on the amount of land that was owned.

By the time of the reformation, there was lot of corruption within the Church. There were people within the church who were convinced that the only way corruption could be removed from the Church was to remove the state from having power over the Church. In fact it was secular

What the Church needs to-day is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use - men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods, but through men. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men, men of prayer.

E. M. Bounds

NOVEMBER - 2014

21

revive renewing and enriching life

The

idea of the knowledge of God through experience was increasingly replaced by that of rational knowledge.

The Ecumenical councils were more bothered about the nature or the being of Christ than the deeds of Christ or what He did during His earthly ministry.

NOVEMBER - 2014

22

kings who appointed officials to the Church. The Church men argued that the lay people should not appoint the officials for the Church. They thought that this could be done by making the office of the Pope more powerful. The Pope then could have an army and in fact this was done by the Pope to develop an army and in fact they were used against Islam during the time of crusades.

In the high Middle Ages an accommodation was reached by the state and the Church. It had two elements. First, the appointment of the Pope was no more made by the State. Hence forth there will be an electorate consisting of bishops, arch bishop etc., to appoint the Pope. The second element was that the bishop and high clergy could be elected by the clergy of the diocese without any involvement of the civil authorities.

The church would appoint people who are in religious matters, and the state would simply approve them. The high Middle Age was an age of power for the church. However they did not lost. In the late middle ages everything began to change. In the history of Europe, perhaps the most important periods are late 14, 15, 16 centuries, which are often referred as a period of renaissance. It was an anti-Christian movement.

However within the renaissance movement there was a group of people known as humanists.

Renaissance meant that one discovers a culture of the present standard by going back to the roots and that the present is measured by the past. The Christian humanists believed that the essence of Christianity must be determined by the apostolic Christianity and the NT must be the judging measuring rod. In that sense, the past serves as the authority over the present. The authority of anybody in the present was not absolutised.

Two schools that made too much noise during this period were the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Office of the Pope. The arrangement of the church and the state was called Christendom. The renascence that took place in the late Middle Age was a connecting point or a catalyst to another movement called nationalism – a concept of nation states. In fact the chief opponents who are against the nationalism were the Holy Roman emperors or the kings and the Holy Roman Church. The Church’s wealth had been in the possession of the land and they were not happy with the nation states who wanted to form their small kingdoms away from the Holy Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Church. This nation state people never wanted their money to go out of their country. During this period the Popes became desperate for money. This also led to lot of corruption. In fact, Popes began to collect money in any means including selling of

the indulgences through his agents in different countries. The nation kings were happy with anybody who supported them. In fact, Luther was supported by some of those nation kings/ princes. Luther on the other hand supported the local princes in their struggle for the freedom.

Nationalism became an important issue during this period. All these issues put together made a reevaluation of the church and state relationship.

It is for this reason, that I believe the single most issue in the post-Constantine period was this Church-state issue.

In the same way during the post-Constantine period, there were a number of changes taking place in the very content of the Christian faith.

The councils that were held one after another in the post Constantine period gave rise to a number of doctrinal definitions. There was of course the influence of the Greek philosophy. God began to be referred as ‘Supreme Being’, ‘Substance’ and so on. God’s being became more important than God’s deeds in history. The idea of the knowledge of God through experience was increasingly replaced by that of rational knowledge. The Ecumenical councils were more bothered about the nature or the being of Christ than the deeds of Christ or what He did during His earthly ministry.

Unfortunate as it stands, such ‘unproductive’ situation has remained the same even to this day wherein the institution called Church has become worse than some of our political parties fighting with muscle power and man power.

The Church during the Reformation and Post Reformation Period The identity of the Church during the period of reformation was again not one single identity.

The RC and the Protestants viewed the Church almost entirely different. In fact for the Roman Catholic segment of the Christian Church, the medieval period of Christianity was a ‘golden age’ of the Christian Church because it was during this period the RC Church reached its zenith of power where as the Protestants viewed it as the ‘dark age’ of the Church. From the late middle ages it became evident that there was a urgent need for the Church to reformed because the Church as a whole was caught up in superstitious practices and beliefs. Instead of serving humanity by her humble and yet persuasive proclamation and teaching and other humanitarian works like becoming a balm of healing, the Church was caught up in the web of power struggles, trying to rule the human kind like a monarch exercising its terrible and fearful power over life and death, both temporal and eternal. Therefore the identity

revive renewing and enriching life

of the Church in the pre-reformation period warranted an urgent need for reformation.

The 16th century reformation was not a single event. It was a movement that started in the late middle ages with the age of scholasticism, mysticism and similar movements. In fact one cannot understand the 16th century reformation apart from the context in Europe during that period. The identity of the Church during this period was one that was in need of an urgent ‘cleansing’ and then ‘new clothing’ although unfortunately the RC’s and specially their leadership was not able to understand this need due mostly to certain political and economical constrains and ‘vested’ interests that they had in different countries.

The identity of the Church in the post reformation period was one of bitter conflicts between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. The reformation and the Counter Reformation brought in such a shame to the institution called Churchthat it took long time for these two major wings of Christianity to come to the talking table. Until the time of the famous Vatican 11 in the 1960’s, there was no official contact between the RC and the Protestant Churches.

The Rationalism of the 18th century and the growing nominalism also had their share of influence on the identity of the Church. Many people either left the Church or began to grow cold in their attitude and participation in the Church. Again this situation remained for a long period till the Evangelical awakening that started in the later part of the 18th century and early part of the 19th century. The beginning of the Pentecostal movement in the early part of the 20th century and the Charismatic movement in the later part of the 20th century also brought several changes in the identity of the Church.

Concluding Remarks It is a matter of fact that the self-perception of the Church has not been constant. It has changed down through the centuries.

It is so unfortunate that the Church, the body of Christ which was a fellowship of the believers passed through different stages and has now become so degraded. When it started in Jerusalem, it was as a fellowship of believers; We read in the book of Acts that they were together as one community as fellow believers; when they moved out of Jerusalem into Antioch we read in Acts 11:26 that the disciples of Jesus for the first time were ‘called’ as Christians; (It is interesting

to note that they did not call themselves as Christians but they were called Christians by others). As it moved into Athens, the center of philosophy, people tended to look at Christianity as a philosophy or tried to relate the Greek philosophy with Christianity; As it moved into Rome especially after the Church came under the umbrella of the state, the Church or Christianity began to become more intuitional; When it moved to Europe during the medieval period and even later, Christianity became more of a culture of Europe - Europe is Christianity and Christianity is Europe; In the present day India, Christianity is more identified with ‘projects and programs’ than a ministry or a fellowship; every leader of any Church or denomination has a project or program as he or she goes out of the country in name of ‘ministry’ or even within the country.

(The way some so-called Christian leaders in India do ministry or mission work look as though they have taken India or Asia on contract basis from God on a business kind of a deal not realizing the fact that Christian ministry is not a contract ministry, it is a ministry of commitment). In North America today it is more like a business or commercialization of the Gospel!! In other words the precious body of Christ, the Church, is for ‘sale’ today, the most degenerated condition any institution can get into, a situation that has no parallel with the early Church or its message.

In our present day Christianity where the values of globalization plays important roles in almost all the aspects of human life, the Gospel is seen often as a 'product' which the preacher must 'sell'. The more one sells it, the more he/she becomes famous. According to Gerloff, "When Reinhard Bonnke makes ten thousand people speak in tongues in half a minute or when he stages miracle after miracle in his services, then religion is marketed like a new shampoo or a disco song. That is neither the renewal of the Church nor of society". Unfortunately some of the basic values of the Gospel like love, grace, mercy, and relationship are now replaced under such marketing mentality with words like 'prosperity' and 'success'. In the urge to become famous some 'laborers' of the Gospel use whatever means are available at their disposal. For many, the end justifies the means, not knowing (or intentionally ignoring) that in God's kingdom the means matters to the end. What we see here is a commoditization of the Gospel, human relationship and values. The need of the hour is to get back to the core of the Gospel and present a crucified, a transforming and living Christ than a crusading Christ or a dominating Christ to our contemporary world.

In the

present day India, Christianity is more identified with ‘projects and programs’ than a ministry or a fellowship; every leader of any Church or denomination has a project or program as he or she goes out of the country in name of ‘ministry’ or even within the country.

NOVEMBER - 2014

23

revive renewing and enriching life

Pastor Dr. P. U. Paulson Bible Teacher, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune

Though

increasing number of theologians, sociologists and ethicists became critical of denominationalism the next trend that we witnessed doesn’t have to do much with this academic conclusions.

NOVEMBER - 2014

24

Post-denominationalism is here to stay?

One of the major discernible trends in the contemporary church is ‘post-denominationalism.’

Discussion on this has been around in some form or other for over twenty years but ‘postdenominationalism’ is more evident and ubiquitous now than ever before. It is hard to define ‘postdenominationalism.’ It can be understood only by comparision and contrast. An overview of historical realities of ‘denominationalism’ and ‘independent church movement’ the two trends from which it stems out is crucial in order to understnad this.

Until a few years ago the visible form of the Christian church could be imagined only in the form of denominations. The historical churches (Roman Catholic, various Orthodox traditions, etc) called themselves the ‘Church’ exclusively. However, they were denominations. Denominationalism assumes centralized power structures, control and conformity in doctrines. Denominational affiliation was crucial for survival and growth.

Though denominations have been ever since organized church existed, the term ‘denominationalism’ entered ecclesiastical parlance in England in the seventeenth century by those groups who left the Anglican church. Their intention in coining this term and applying it to them was to avoid being labelled as ‘sects.’ Those who called themselves Christian denominations laid the claim that they are valid expressions of the Body of Christ. Denominations gave form and content to the various expressions of the Church and opened up multiple possibilities of ‘being church.’ Denominations posited doctrinal differences for their sole reason to exist. But this was challenged. In his book titled ‘The Social

Sources Of Denominationalism’ (1929) Richard Niebuhr argued that the denominations have emerged not on the basis of doctrinal differences alone but history, sociology, and ethics have played their role in their emergence. This led him to conclude that denominations are ‘secular’ in their composition and character. So, he advised that the church ‘must learn to recognize and acknowledge the secular character of its denominationalism.’ Richard Niebuhr helped thinkers to take the claims of denominations with a pinch of salt. Though increasing number of theologians, sociologists and ethicists became critical of denominationalism the next trend that we witnessed doesn’t have to do much with this academic conclusions.

The next significant trend was that of the ‘independent churches.’ The ‘independent church movement’ is based on the assumption that churches can exist outside the denominational structures as well. However, though the ‘independents’ rejected denominational affiliations, denominational affinities were not easy to shake off. For example, though many ‘independent churches’ existed alongside the Pentecostal denominational churches a good number of them were identified as ‘independent Penteostal churches.’ They were ‘independent’ as far as polity and administrative structures are concerned but in matters of faith and practice they were one with certain existing denominations or confessional traditions. This made easy for independents congregations to be absorbed by major denominations as well as new independent movements to come out of established denominations. The independent church moved away from the denominational structures

revive renewing and enriching life

of power and control but denominational imagination played a powerful role, though that role was less conspicuous. It is an irony of history that many of the once independent churches later morphed themselves in to denominations later with their own power structures!

However, post-denominationalism is altogether different. It is a way of imagining and being church without denominational affiliation or affinity. Post-denominationalism is a mentality that rules modern Christian mind. In this mentality people choose or change congregations for reasons other than denominational or confessional. Denominations, denominational structures, distintives or identity doesn’t play any part in the choices that people with postdenominational mentality make.

‘Post-denominationalists’ do not define their faith in terms of differences. A few decades ago questions like what makes Baptists different from Methodists or Pentecostals were relevant.

Denominations attracted members on the basis of their distinctive claims. That’s what made Methodists emerge from Anglicans and Pentecostals from other traditions. When people move from one place to another they joined the congregations that belonged to their denominational confessions or started new congregations of that denominational confessions. Postdenominationalist mentality doesn’t ask such questions. They can move around with much more easily without sacrificing their faith. Thus one of the marks of postdenominationalism is denominational mobility.

It is possible to move around without their faith and practices being compromised.

Denominational mobility is possible since most denominations are post-modern in their thinking and are willing to push their distinctive features of their denominations less evident.

Blurring of denominational boundaries and postmodern tolerance of the opposites is facilitating postdenominationalism. There is a tendency to become what I would like to call, ‘more like the other’ in such an extent that differences disappear at least on the surface. This tendency has been observed in politics. In the UK the once diagonally opposite political ideologies of Labour and Conservatives have more in common now in their political agenda so that it is not easy to define them in clear categories. The same has happened in the US in the case of Democrats and Republicans. The same is going to happen in India as the ‘right wing parties’ and the ‘left’ begins to swing towards each other to claim the space at the centre. Just as political ideologies have lesser roles to play in secular society dogmatic neutrality seems to be the direction that postdenominationalism is leading the Church to.

I have attended Pentecostal congregations in some countries and I couldn’t find anything in the worship service that is distinctly Pentecostal; some even appeared to be Presbyterian or Methodist. At the same time I have been to Anglican and Methodist congregations that appeared to me more Pentecostal in their worship than what they are known to be. It is true that in many countries many Anglicans will find themselves comfortable in Pentecostal congregations and vice versa though until a few decades ago these were considered to be non-reconciliable opposites. (Thanks to the Charismatic movement!)

Blurring of doctrinal boundaries and tolerance of differences doesn’t mean this is ecumenism in new garbs! Post-denominationalism is not Ecumenism. Ecumenism is not homogenity, it is unity in diversity. It recognizes the diversity and also to an extent consider diversity is significant for our unity and mission. Post-denominationalism seems to ignore diversity and differences.

Though blurring of the denominational boundaries is an important factor that facilitate ‘postdenominationalism’, it is accelerated by the entry of the never-churched adults. For the first generation believers entry to post-denominational churches is much easier than to denominal churches.

Entry into denominational congregations requries familiarity with rituals, language, conformity to particular life-style and subscription to a particular doctrinal stand. Post denominational churches does not have any such ‘entry requirements’ as they are inclusive and willing to tolerate diversity and reconcile opposites.

Denominational churches were known by their denominational labels and Independents by thier confessional affinities but post-denominationals are known by their lack of these identity markers.

They tend to deny any explicit denominational or even Christian identity. They have a new language which betrays a distate for traditonal labels. Some of the new congregations may not even have the word ‘church’ or even ‘Christian’ in their names. Churches are increasingly called ‘community.’ Church names need not be biblical even! Names like ‘Heavenly Feast’ is acceptable though it could easily apply to a restaurant as well (No offense intended). People tend to be comfortable with such names that are neutral.

The fact that such congregations are registering phenomenal growth means that people are comfortable with such non-traditonal labels.

One of the major concern as postdenominationalism is gaining more ground has to do with the future of denominationalism. As I have already mentioned Post-denominationalism is a mentality and it is impacting the establihsed denominations. The national and international

“You may speak but a word to a child, and in that child there may be slumbering a noble heart which shall stir the Christian Church in years to come.

Charles Spurgeon

NOVEMBER - 2014

25

revive renewing and enriching life

The ABC of becoming a Christian

Aaredmitinthat you need of

someone to save you from guilt, shame and bondage or addictions.

Admit that you have violated God’s Laws.

B

elieve that Jesus Christ is the only One who is able to save you and to bring deliverence and offer forgiveness of sins. Believe that Jesus is the only One to conquer death and is the risen Saviour.

C

onfess with your mouth that Jesus is your Lord and submit to His rulership in your life.

NOVEMBER - 2014

26

bodies are losing control over local churches and parishes. There is a new kind of congregationalism emerging. Even those local congregations who continue to use denominational labels are more and more independent in their governance.

Missionary churches are independent of their parent structures in most countries. As Christianity is shifting to Global South, churches are larger than their parent organizations in the West and are financially independent. For example there are more Methodist congregations and members in the rest of the world than in England where it originated or more Assemblies of God congregations and members in many countries than in the US, its home. These churches that are now no more dependent on the parent denominational structures are claiming more autonomy. Denominational labels (especially the ones with Western flavour) are an unnecessary burden that they don’t want to carry around any more.

Post-denominational attitude and values are marching into the citadels of denominationalism through the new generation of candidates for ordained ministry particularly the ones trained in institutions that belong to other confessions.

Seminary curricula are increasingly nonconfessional. In India, the newly revised curriculum of the Senate of Serampore College has practically nothing that is confessional. Moreover, the space that was there for institutions to include their confessional elements are taken away too. Senate of Serampore is not the largest affiliating body

but it is the most dominant and influential. This dominance affects even institutions not affiliated to it directly. Students trained in ecumenical or interdenominational seminaries also develop appreciation of confessional traditons other than the one they are brought up. Non-confessional curriculum combined with familiarity with other Christian faith traditions are the essential ingredients to ‘post-denominationalism.’

Post-denominationalism gains further ground as denominational loyalty among members and ministers are running downhill. This combined with preference for better payment and facility makes the potential candidates for ministry to move out to better pastures than choose to ‘suffer’ for a their parent denominations. I have come across a number of seminary graduates who move out of young churches to mainline denominations solely for the sake of ‘job security’ and better facilities. Their new adopted denominations are aware of their faith and practice and are willing to accommadate them. The choice to have a better ‘career’ with less damage to one’s faith commitment is attractive.

Is post-denominationalism here to stay for ever? Is this the future of the Christian Church? These questions are difficult to answer.

However, one thing is clear. Whether it is a passing phenomenon or not it will make a sizeable dent on denominationalism and the most to suffer will be the ones who are more exclusive and tightly structured.

Just one Minute

refused to compromise the integrity of the • They word or their testimony of Christ for short-term

•

Continued from page 2

Possesses the peace of God in the midst of the most troublesome circumstances.

• Bases their identity in Jesus Christ rather than in their group.

A healthy church organization will strongly reflect these characteristics in the people it chooses for leadership and administration.

In the Book of Revelation, our Lord commends the Church of Philadelphia as a model for other churches to adopt. Of the seven churches to whom John writes in obedience to the Lord’s command, Philadelphia is the only church that receives full commendation by Jesus Christ without criticism or condemnation. Other churches were larger and wealthier, but the Church of Philadelphia was the only one that ultimately prevailed.

The Church of Philadelphia must serve as our own model: Working together, its people sought works that were first of all, commendable to Christ.

They expected commitment from their members and trained them for it.

• •

gain.

They were faithful to keep God’s commands and to endure patiently in times of trial and when God’s timetable didn’t match theirs.

They sought for opportunities and open doors to advance God’s mission in their lives and the world around them.

They refused to follow the crowd, expecting opposition and to be in the minority.

They welcomed new faces and new believers.

They trusted God’s provision for all things.

Any church that follows in the narrow way of the Church in Philadelphia will become an organism and an organization that glorifies God, advances the gospel and transforms peoples and nations in great and unexpected ways. May we and future generations see this wisdom in us.

Father God, I pray for revival in my heart and in my church that will bring full commendation from you.

I pray that my church will advance your kingdom and the power of your gospel in new and exciting ways that glorify your great Name. Amen.

• • • • •