Pagan Christianity 2

Viola Exposes Pagan Christianity by Steve Eastman, OpenHeaven.com TOP News Frank Viola is one of the leading authorities in the house church movement. Not only does he have a passion for the truth, but a command of history, supporting his assertions in Pagan Christianity with excellent scholarship. Recently OpenHeaven.com asked him about the ideas in the book. Can you summarize the reason for the title, Pagan Christianity? Sure. The title neatly packs the entire point of the book into two words. Pagan Christianity is actually an oxymoron . . . both terms carry concepts that are mutually exclusive. And that is precisely what we have on the earth today. Modern Christianity, whether Protestant or Catholic, is a blending of pagan and Christian practices and mindsets. The book demonstrates that virtually all of the practices of the modern church have their roots in pagan culture rather than the Word of God. The book contains over 1100 footnotes documenting (historically) this proposal. A secondary purpose of the title is that it is shockingly thought-provoking. So I’ve been told anyway. Could you compare the two types of sermons--the kind Peter gave on the day of Pentecost and the kind we hear in traditional churches today? I’ll take a stab at it. The modern sermon has the following characteristics: 1. It is a regular occurrence delivered faithfully from the pulpit at least once a week. 2. It is delivered by the same person typically the pastor. 3. It is delivered to a passive audience; it is essentially a monologue. 4. It is a cultivated form of speech, possessing a specific structure. It typically contains an introduction, three to five points, and a conclusion. This structure was borrowed from the pagan rhetorical form of speech known as the Greek “homily.” Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, and Augustine baptized it and called it “Christian.” And we’ve never recovered. By contrast, the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts possessed the following features: 1. It was sporadic rather than a weekly ritual delivered every week ... world without end. 2. It was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems. 3. It was extemporaneous and without rhetorical structure. 4. It was most often dialogical (meaning it included feedback and interruptions from the audience) rather than monological (a one-way discourse). 5. It was not delivered by the same person. (As in Peter’s case with Pentecost, the other apostles preached regularly as well.) 6. It is temporary. Regular preaching is designed to win the lost or equip the church. Once equipped, the members of the church minister one to another. Add to that, the New Testament letters show that the ministry of God’s Word came from the entire church in their regular gatherings. This “every-member” functioning was also conversational and marked by interruptions (see 1 Corinthians 14). That’s a brief sketch. I dedicate an entire chapter on the subject in my book which goes into greater detail. More importantly, it makes a strong case as to why this issue is important in the first place, explaining how the modern sermon does damage to the Body of Christ. Some people think that if we really want to understand how a New Testament church is supposed to operate, we should consult the writings of the church fathers. What is the problem with this? Liturgical churches, particularly the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic, map their roots to the early church fathers. I think that the early church fathers are good in nailing down Biblically orthodox Christian belief which is shared by all Christians in every century. This is especially true when it comes to holding fast to the truths regarding the Person of Jesus Christ amid various heresies. As far as their views on church leadership, they really are a mixed bag. And as time went on, their views on church practice were heavily influenced by Greco-Roman concepts of hierarchy and official authority. This all came to a fine point with Emperor Constantine who patterned the church’s service and officers after the officers and ceremonies of the Roman government. Since the word pastor is listed in Ephesians 4:11, we know it is a valid term. How have pagan ideas influenced the way that ministry is generally perceived and how should it operate ideally? The chapter on the modern pastoral role is the longest in the book. This is because it is the largest sacred cow that must be turned on its ear. It is also because the history of where it came from traces very far back into time. To put it briefly, the modern pastorate is no more than a Reformed Catholic priest. And a Catholic priest is an unscriptural office that added a ton of hierarchical power to an “office” that possessed absolute moral and spiritual authority. The modern pastor is the thief of every-member functioning in the Body of Christ. And a far cry from those elders who were depicted as shepherds simply because they cared for the flock outside the meetings of the church. The modern pastor system is so ingrained in our thinking as Protestant Christians that I have made available an article which treats the subject online. You can find it at http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm . Since the traditional churches mostly recognizes pastors and evangelists, where are the apostles, prophets and teachers within these movements? The Charismatics and the Third-Wavers have a copious supply of apostles, prophets, and teachers in their movement. However, to my mind, a first-century teacher, prophet, and apostle is a far cry from what typically carries that label today. These terms have been invested with hierarchical power and “official” authority. In the Bible, apostles, prophets, and teachers are terms to describe a spiritual function. They were never used as offices or titles. Apostles were people who were sent to plant churches. Prophets were people who could articulate clearly. Their major function was to reveal the present mind of God to the church. Sometimes they saw the future. Teachers were those who could read and write (which would put them in a class of only 5-10% of the first-century population), and who had the ability to disclose Christ through the Old Testament Scriptures. Aside from the apostle, who was itinerant, prophets and teachers were local people who had regular jobs. None were clergy in any sense of the word. When did tithing become an accepted teaching in the history of the churchand how should it be regarded today? Great question. The shocking answer is the 8th century! The early Christians rightly understood that tithing was like an income tax for the nation of Israel. If a Christian wants to give 10% of their income to the Lord’s work today, they are perfectly free to. They are also free not to. In Christ, we are free to give what we wish. The New Testament standard is to give cheerfully and according to one’s ability (2 Corinthians 8-9). That equates to more than 10% for many people. Further, New Testament giving was never to support clergy. I discuss this in detail in my book. Who were the Nicolaitans, the people whose deeds Jesus says He hates in Revelation 2:6. No one really knows who they were. Some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of the Nicolaitans that Jesus condemns in Revelation 2:6 is a reference to the rise of an early clergy. F.W. Grant, Nicolaitanism or the Rise and Growth of Clerisy (Bedford: MWTB), pp. 3-6 was among them. Interestingly, the Greek word nicolaitane means “conquering the people.” Nikos mean “to conquer over” and laos means “the people.” Grant believed that Nicolaitans are those who make “laity” out of God’s people by raising up “clergy” to lord it over them. I think this interpretation is quite plausible. In I Samuel 8:4-7, the Jews rejected God's as their king and demanded an earthly king instead.What relevance does this Old Testament story have for the church? This story establishes a crucial spiritual principle. Namely, God will often give His people what they desire even if it does not reflect His perfect will. Therefore, the argument that says, “The modern church must be God’s will since God has allowed it to remain on the earth all these centuries” is refuted by the story in 1 Samuel. In large measure, the Body of Christ has opted for an earthly king to rule over her. His name is “pastor.” The New Testament is quite clear that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church. There are no points of contact with the modern pastor and the “shepherd/elders” of the first century. The latter did not suppress Christ’s Headship or the free functioning of His Body as does the former. How should house church people relate to other types of churches and their leadership? Each house church will have to walk that out for themselves. Some institutional church leaders are quite hostile toward Christians who meet outside the religious system. Others simply ignore them and have little interest in establishing fellowship with them. A house church should have a posture that is open to all of God’s people no matter where they gather or what they believe. If Christ has received them, we must also. The exception to this would be those who would seek to poison or divide the church. Paul was very clear in his letters that such ones should not be received into a church. Some of those who read Pagan Christianity may want to immediately plant a house church. What words of caution would you give as they seek to follow God more fully. The New Testament is quite clear that not all are called to plant churches (1 Corinthians 12:28-31). I have watched people try to start their own house churches who were not called or qualified to do it. In every case, I saw nothing good come of it. Most of these groups were simply glorified Bible studies that were facilitated by the person who started the group. I have written a detailed volume on how churches were started in the first century. It’s called So You Want to Start a House Church? I believe that if we would embrace the principles that God has established for the raising up of churches, we would see an enormous restoration of God’s spiritual house on the earth today. There are not many of us who can claim to being raised in house church. What process did God use to take you to your current understanding? At age 16, I was a very hungry Christian. Desperate is actually a better word to describe my state. My desperation led me to countless denominations, movements, and para-church organizations. Later I realized that I was in quest for my natural habitat as a Christian. It didn’t take me long to realize that the modern institutional system was not the proper habitat that I was to live in. No believer is for that matter. After searching the Scripture in quest for the first-century church, I along with some others left the religious system and began the journey of learning what it means to meet under the Headship of Christ. I was 23 years old at the time. That “experiment” lasted eight very intense years. We made many mistakes and tried some very foolish things. But we learned. And in the midst of it we touched authentic Body life. The net was that I learned a great deal about Christ and His church. That was the beginning of my trek. From then until the present day, the Lord has taken me through various and sundry experiences with Christians outside the organized church in the US and overseas. The result is that I could never go back to institutionalized Christianity after touching the glories of Body life. What do we need beyond the correct structure for house church? I would say that we not only need some things beyond the house church structure, but that these things are far more important than the structure. What is of utmost significance is the necessity for a ground-breaking revelation of the Person for whom the church lives. We need a new seeing of the Lord Jesus Christ and of God’s eternal purpose which is in Him. We also need broken people who have had deep dealings with God, who have been taken into deep waters by the Holy Spirit, who have had years of experience in first-century church life as a non-leader, and who are able to proclaim this glorious Christ with vision, power, and practicality. In other words, we need those who are able to impart life, to cast vision, and to provide practical tools that will put believers into the living reality of that vision. We also need a restoration of the first-century Christian mind, which is radically different from the contemporary Protestant/evangelical mindset. The church and its structure are the natural outflow of these things. Read Steve Eastman's review of Frank Viola's book Pagan Christianity Read Steve Eastman's review of the revised and updated Pagan Christianity. Read Steve Eastman's news article about the revised and updated Pagan Christianity. Frank Viola's website can be found at www.ptmin.org. Edited by News Editor on 03/16/2008 at 2:40pm Back to Top David Yeubanks New Member Joined: 11/22/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4 Posted: 11/22/2005 at 7:51pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First let me say that Frank's book, Pagan Christianity, is excellent! I have purchased a number of copies to share with friends and I wholeheartedly recommend it! Frank tackles this subject like no author I've read yet even comes close to. Fully footnoted and virtually every facet concerning the makeup of modern "churchianity" is addressed in concise manner. This is a wonderful resource indeed! If the top rating for a book is 5 stars, Pagan Christianity deserves every star! Having said this, there are a couple “minor” points about Frank’s opinion concerning apostles that I contend. I have contacted Frank before concerning this issue and was blessed that Frank took some time to respond to my inquiries and engage the subject a bit. I have to say, however, that even after reading Frank’s responses to my questions, I still disagree with his conclusions (of course meaning no disrespect to my brother in Christ). Since I noticed some of the same arguments present in his response to Steve Eastman, I thought I would at least chime in a few thoughts of my own for the sake of discussion. Frank’s writings expressing the atmosphere and context surrounding the first century church is aptly stated and I do believe he does justice to the heart of the New Testament story (and I will also add that, though I do not know Frank personally, virtually everything I have read about the groups he has given oversight to, do appear to model a Christ-like character in parallel to what Scripture seems to convey); however, I personally believe his conclusions about apostles (whom he calls “church planters”) appear to be based more on his own “religious concepts” (for lack of a better way to say it) than what appears to be plainly visible in Scripture. Frank rightly argues that the early church fathers are a “mixed bag” in terms of their view on church leadership, yet I can see no other place where the concept of “church planting” is so clearly and heavily taught than in these writings. Try as I have to give Frank the benefit of the doubt and sought to understand how he believes that Scripture clearly teaches church planting and church planters, not only can I NOT find the terms present, but I can find no such activity described anywhere. I am not suggesting Frank is intentionally being untruthful here; I am sure he is quite personally convinced of his view. I also appreciate and agree with Frank’s emphasis on functionary ministry as opposed to “title” and “rank” emphasis. Additionally, his exposure of the false “office” of the modern pastoral profession was excellent and spot-on. My only challenge lies in the fact that Scripture (as I have studied it thus far) nowhere appears to teach something called “church planting” or “church planters”… For example, Frank makes the statement: “Apostles were people who plant churches.” I read on hoping to find some shred of Scripture for this statement, and Frank gave one. He continued: “The New Testament is quite clear that not all are called to plant churches (1 Corinthians 12:28-31). I have watched people try to start their own house churches who were not called or qualified to do it.” So… I think we can safely conclude at this point that Frank seems to be asserting that 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 apparently speaks of a “calling” to plant churches and certain individuals who are also specially qualified for this unique task. Well, what does this passage say? 1 Corinthians 12:28-31 - And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. First, the preceding passage says that God has appointed IN the church. So, in the first place, we can see that the church is already established before any mention is made of the functionary gifting of an apostle. Does it really make sense to say that God appoints IN the ALREADY EXISTING church “church planters” to establish what ALREADY EXISTS? I suppose one answer to this would be to point out that the “church” in reference here is not a local assembly, but the global, spiritual body of Christ to which we are all called into. I would heartily agree with that response because it stands in harmony with the context of the passage. In fact, the previous verse to the passage (which Frank unfortunately left out of reference) says (vs. 27), “Now you (people) are THE BODY OF CHRIST and individually members of it.” This obviously (in my opinion) creates another problem for Frank’s argument. If the “church” (this “assembly” of people) in context is the “body of Christ” (and Scripture affirms this connection – Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 24; etc.) then you still have only ONE “church” in reference here and it’s NOT one that is started (“planted”) by a man (Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 – “…upon this Rock I WILL BUILD MY Church...”). Next, the passage Frank referred to mentions that God has appointed “apostles.” What are apostles? Frank tells us they are “people who plant churches”, but is that what Scripture teaches? The Greek word for apostles (as used in the Ephesians and Corinthians passages) is “apostolos” and simply means (quoting Strong’s Greek Dictionary) “a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.” Hmmm… Nothing there about planting churches… Maybe I’m using the wrong dictionary? Let’s try Thayer’s: “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders…” Hmmm… Well, it looks like the closest thing in this passage might be the part about being “sent with orders.” So let’s look specifically then at Paul’s direct calling by Jesus Christ and see if the Lord mentioned anything about being called a “church planter” or being “given orders” to go and “plant churches.” Act 26:16-18 – (Jesus to Saul/Paul) “But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for the very purpose of appointing you to be a servant and witness of what you have seen and of what I will show you. I will continue to rescue you from your people and from THE GENTILES TO WHOM I AM SENDING YOU. You will open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from Satan's control to God, so that they might receive the forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Once again, no mention of some call to plant churches, let alone obtain “the acquired skill” to do such. What is mentioned is the very thing that Paul was APOSTLED (sent/appointed) to do; MINISTER JESUS CHRIST TO THE GENTILES. Indeed he would be especially equipped and gifted by God for this purpose, but not for the task of “planting a church” but rather for planting the GOSPEL of Christ in (through teaching) people. How one get’s “plant churches” from this is truly beyond me. I think Frank is very close to the right idea but I think his opinion also holds the danger of leading him beyond the clear and simple teaching Paul actually presented. For Frank to essentially shoot down everyone else who chooses to gather together in some fashion under the headship of Christ without his help and to even presume failure of anyone who dares try without an official “church planter” as Frank presumes exists, is a tinge on the side of arrogant in my opinion. When we comprehend fully that Paul, in this passage, was talking about CHRIST not himself and not some little religious group he was trying to start up, we see that Paul’s principle aim was the message of Christ, not whether or not only he got to be the main dude to preach it. Obviously, clearly, without question – Paul knew he was only a piece in God’s puzzle. Paul NEVER taught such nonsense that any group who wasn’t started up by a “church planter” was destined for failure in the eyes of God. This reminds me a little of when Jesus had to correct the disciples for their exclusive mindset about their little “official” group. I have to honestly say that I’m not sure that Jesus would concur with Viola’s narrow view of who is allowed to gather in His name and expect God to abundantly bless it. Mark 9:38-41 - John spoke up, "Teacher, we saw a man using your name to expel demons and we stopped him because he wasn't in our group." Jesus wasn't pleased. "Don't stop him. No one can use my name to do something good and powerful, and in the next breath cut me down. If he's not an enemy, he's an ally. Why, anyone by just giving you a cup of water in my name is on our side. Count on it that God will notice. The man in the previous passage, which John pointed out, wasn’t “official”. He wasn’t one of the “chosen apostles”. Yet he apparently demonstrated that he believed Jesus fully and put actions to his faith and saw true results! Jesus, rather than take the opportunity to point out that such was impossible without “proper affiliation with the group”, actually tells His own to leave the guy alone, that he’s on the same side and that God will notice him. Jesus also said, “if a mere two or three of you gather in My name, I will be there in the midst.” (Matthew 18:20) What then are we to imagine if we take Frank’s ideology into account? According to his logic, virtually every gathering centered on Christ on planet earth is invalid and will inevitably result in disaster without the glorious figure of a “church planter” to enter the scene. I still wonder how Frank can so adamantly claim in his writings that the modern day pastor figure exists nowhere in Scripture (which I agree with him concerning) yet claim that his “church planter” is so absolutely essential when he is not even mentioned one time! The gift of an apostle is just one of many gifts God gave THE WHOLE CHURCH so that THE WHOLE CHURCH (the body of Christ) would be built up. The apostle is not the “cornerstone” of the Church – CHRIST IS! In my own conversations with Frank (via e-mail) he suggested another passage to better emphasize his point to me. The passage was 1 Corinthians chapter 3. Frank specifically highlighted a number of verses for me that he asserted proved that Paul “planted” people (i.e. churches). The first passage he referenced was as follows: 1 Corinthians 3:6 - I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Ok, so Paul “planted”… but what exactly did Paul plant? Was it people? Was it a “church”. First of all, what does the word “planted” mean here? The Greek word is “phuteuō” and means (again referencing Strong’s) “to implant. Figuratively to instill doctrine…” So, first of all, it’s clear that the word is speaking about doctrine or teaching. What teaching? What doctrine did Paul plant? Was it how to build a church? Was it how to become a church planter? Was it why church planters are essential? Sorry for the sarcasm, but it was none of those things. The Scripture is very clear concerning what Paul TAUGHT (i.e. “planted”) in this passage… Frank told me that Paul planted a “church”. But the passage, as I read it, describes something completely different. Instead, the passage says that Paul, as a master builder, laid A FOUNDATION but he did NOT build “the building”. Observe the text: 1 Co 3:9-11 - We are God's coworkers. You are God's field. YOU ARE GOD’S BUILDING. As a skilled and experienced builder, I used the gift that God gave me TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR THAT BUILDING. However, someone else is building on it. Each person must be careful how he builds on it. After all, no one can lay any other foundation than the one that is ALREADY laid, and THAT FOUNDATION IS JESUS CHRIST. The English text confuses terminologies slightly here, in my opinion (I’ll explain in a moment), though the obvious meat of the passage is boldly evident. Paul “indoctrinated” people with the message of Jesus Christ! This is the point! From the beginning this was his direct calling and mission to PREACH CHRIST! The “building” is God’s people. Paul did not erect this “building”. He laid its foundation! When the passage says that “another builds on it…” this does not mean that others “build churches” on this foundation – rather it is speaking about the same thing. Paul was telling the people that there would be other men to follow him that would also be “teaching doctrine” (i.e. “building upon”), though he was the first to establish this doctrine with them (i.e. “lay the foundation”). This is why he said, “each much be careful how he builds on it.” Paul is talking about remaining true to the TEACHING OF CHRIST. If Paul had intended to teach some system of raising up “church planters”, certainly this would have been an opportune moment to make example of himself. But what did Paul say concerning himself as it regarded his mission to teach Christ? Brother Frank Viola tells us that the church planter is of utmost importance; that most all attempts to plant a church will fail without one. Let’s see what Paul said: 1 Corinthians 3:7 - The ones who do the planting or watering aren't important, but God is important because he is the one who makes the seed grow. As a side point here, I wish to point out something else rather interesting that Frank seems to overlook. Paul talks about those who “water” just as often as he talks about those who “plant”. In fact, as the previous passage just described, both are mentioned as having equal importance (or lack of it as the case may be). Again, Paul glorifies the MESSAGE he is referring to, NOT the messengers! But I have never personally heard Frank talk about the “waterers”. Why is there no teaching by him concerning the essentiality of “church waterers”? But consider this: The perspective I have tried to convey, which I see as the biblical one concerning Paul’s teaching, stands in harmony with the entire context of this passage. Paul speaks of “planters” and “waterers” and his discussion concerning the doctrine of Christ involves “foundation layers” and “doctrine teachers”. It’s plain and simple. To go beyond what is simply evident is dangerous I think because it runs the risk of adding to the intent of Paul here and inserting that which God never defined for how His Church should function. Now, of course someone has to plant and someone will water and though Paul de-emphasizes them in light of God’s greater importance, it is obvious they are both parts of God’s purpose and calling. In this, and this only, would I agree with Frank’s notion of “essentiality”, but my concern with Frank’s message is that he makes far too much of the “planter.” Not only that, but I think he steps just a bit beyond the clear doctrine of Scripture to suggest that what an apostle “plants” is a “church”, when the Scripture BOLDLY states that an apostle is nothing more than an envoy of Christ, sent with a commission to do His bidding and bring forth a specific message. In Paul’s case, it was to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles; to implant within them the doctrine of Jesus Christ. All of his letters to the Church in the New Testament are the manifested evidence of the doctrine he preached and the life he lived. Yet I reiterate, there does not appear to be a single shred of Scripture that defines the role of an apostle as being a call to plant churches. Nor does it appear that the Scripture envisions any such character known as a “church planter.” This, of course, I will submit to you as my opinion based on my current understanding of the text. I’m not a Greek scholar or a professional historian, but I know how to use a dictionary and exercise the mind God gave me. I remain teachable and willing to re-examine any detail that anyone feels I may have overlooked. If such is the case that Frank and I are not that distant in perspective here and it is merely a distraction of words (i.e. terminologies), then perhaps someone else observing can suggest better phraseology. I love Frank as my brother in Christ and I thank God for his valuable contribution to the Lord’s Church. I hate to make this sound as though I’m nitpicking my brother. I hope it is clear rather, that I am nitpicking a piece of his doctrine and it’s because I think it is a significant point of doctrine to examine. If Frank is wrong then this may prove to be a significant obstacle to spiritual growth and proper understand of how the Lord’s Church is comprised and ordered. I really do pray that this is little more than semantics and that Frank has laid the right foundation, that foundation being only Christ. And if nothing else, I pray that this challenge will serve to help us make sure we clarify these terms so that we don’t get sidetracked with religious distractions, losing sight of our One Leader; Christ. As Paul said concerning this very thing: 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - For no one can lay any other foundation than the one we already have-Jesus Christ. Now anyone who builds on that foundation may use gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, or straw. But there is going to come a time of testing at the judgment day to see what kind of work each builder has done. Everyone's work will be put through the fire to see whether or not it keeps its value. If the work survives the fire, that builder will receive a reward. But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builders themselves will be saved, but like someone escaping through a wall of flames. The context of 1 Corinthians 3 is, in my opinion, the doctrine that men preach. If that teaching is not consistent with the foundation, then God help the man who misleads others though he may have charisma, talent and good intentions. In my view, it is simply insane to suggest that any man on earth can be regarded as a “church planter.” The Church is the body OF CHRIST. It was fashioned by Him, it belongs to Him, it is led by Him, and it lives only as it remains in Him. Paul, as I read him, very boldly made his teaching clear that he was NOT planting “a church” but that he was laying ONE FOUNDATION and all that rests upon that foundation belongs completely to ONE ONLY! The Lord Jesus Christ. It is us believers who are the very Temple of God. There is ample record throughout history concerning how Christians believed in the first and earliest centuries of the Church and one thing is abundantly clear and present within those writings and it is a truth that is consistent with Scriptural doctrine; That is that God’s Temple (i.e. His body; His Church; His Bride) is NOT fashioned with the hands of men. The early church fathers give us many examples concerning why Christians did NOT build “churches” (or “temples”; places of worship); because they knew that we are made by God in His image and for a man to think he can establish something with his hands and call that something “the Temple of God” he is deceived and practices idolatry! 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 - Don't you realize that all of you together are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? God will bring ruin upon anyone who ruins this temple. For God's temple is holy, and you Christians are that temple. Thank you for the opportunity to share my response to the subject of “church planting”. Again, while I disagree (in part) with Frank’s doctrine concerning apostles, I do thank God for the good fruit that has followed this man’s work and I pray much more will follow. I am so blessed by the resources he has worked so hard to put into the hands of others and I know there has been great benefit in real people’s lives because of his labors of love and obedience to the Father. I myself have been encouraged greatly by Frank’s teaching on many subjects and I pray he will continue to have favor in what he sets his hands to – as God wills. Thankfully, Pagan Christianity does not spend great efforts trying to convince readers of Frank’s views on church planting and for this reason (and many others) I can happily recommend it fully. It is an excellent piece of work. A worthy read by anyone. God bless you Frank (forgive my nitpicking) and God bless everyone who has the privilege and opportunity to read your book. In His grip, Dave Back to Top elinathan New Member Joined:

THANKS Dave, That addition to the interview with frank was excellent. I think it is fair to say that since Frank places so much importance on defitions and applications of words/terms then its only right to examine the very words, terms and concepts he teaches. We afterall a body so we can all learn from one another. I think often we get so impressed by 'new' or 'cutting edge' teaching that we struggle to discern that which is good from that which is bad or unbeneficial. Everything needs to be in the right context and only together can we gain increasingly true and accurate understanding of God's mind. Likewise I appreciate Frank's teaching, its truly wonderful but he is afterall just watering as are many others. We should not be impressed by any titles of man, be they 'church planter' or 'apostle'... if we do house church becomes just another denomination with a new set of clergy and laity. Eli Back to Top Denise Detwiler Senior Member Joined: 01/10/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2896 Posted: 12/27/2005 at 6:07am | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome David and Eli to the forums here! Just to add in a bit to what you guys are speaking of...I was from a mainline denom church where at the time there was no recognition there were any sorts of functionings (not titles) given to people to operate in besides pastor and evangelist (and these were actually portrayed more as personal choices made and not the way people were created to be) . And nothing of the Holy Spirit was belived in. It was all taught to be 'of the devil'. (just giving a little history) One day reading the bible God TOTALLY revealed to me what is depicted in I Cor and I began desperately seeking to have this for I knew it was missing. I was moved to a house church from that point and spent many years from around 1978 through 1986 or 7 strictly in those sorts of churches (most of them did not have names even) and a part of an unofficial network of such fellowships. It was there we learned to function as the Spirit moved in the various gifts. Round about 1984 or so there came out some understanding and some defining teachings about different people who functioned primarily in various gifts and this was more along the lines of the Ephesians list. It was not about titles or position rather functioning. I have seen the other side of it where major emphasis and such was given in certain circles simply because a person functioned or seemed to function as, for example, a prophet. I truly appreciate the way in which I had good grounding dusring the craziness of those years....in spite of the good grounding I still had more idolatry in me that needed to be exposed and dealt with. Anyhow that's a whole different story. Just wanting to affirm the function that the small fellowships have had and the impact on the Body as a whole regarding these matters. The time for me in these churches was a time when most people refused to acknowledge they were even 'real chuches' and I am thankful that nowadays not only do people recognize them but many embrace them and many fellowships in this day are more relationally strong and are doing away with all of the form and formality that once ruled over true functioning. I learned to recognize the 'feel' of 'real church' over those years and the importance of doing away with the 'pecking order' kingdom leadership is a far different thing, isn't it? __________________ Blessings! denise Back to Top Ron McGatlin Admin Group Joined: 08/23/2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2545 Posted: 12/29/2005 at 6:30pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blessings to all of you posting on or reading this thread. Frank Viola is indeed bringing us much understanding and diligent research exposing the trek of perversion from the plan and purposes of God to the monstrosity of religious structures of today. We are only beginning to grasp where we have really come to over the past couple of thousand years. Getting off course by only a few degrees has caused us to wind up far from the original planed course two millennia down the road. Exposing this journey and causing us to stop and look at where we are standing and where the road should have led if we had stayed on course is shocking. We need Frank's bare bones no punches pulled look at practical reality and function to awaken us. However, the answer to regaining the desired course is not found in practical attempts to redefine. And to, through the thinking process, alter our direction to an angle toward the intended course. Man's thinking replacing the Spirit's leading is what drove us off course in the beginning. We must move from understanding and reasoning of the things of God to Spiritual revelation and impartation. The change that will bring us back on course is to become one with God through intimate relationship that enables us to hear clearly what God is saying by the Holy Spirit. Thinking and reasoning are intellectual terms from the tree of knowledge. Waiting on God and hearing Him are spiritual terms from the tree of life. It will never be enough to know how to do meetings and to implement techniques and methods. There must be the reality of the Head (Christ Jesus) functioning by the Holy Spirit in every aspect of direction and leadership. Man cannot learn or think his way to the kingdom of God reality. It is only by Holy Spirit impartation of the Truth (Jesus). Even as elders (spiritually mature ones) we have no right to make decisions either by ourselves or as a group. To do so is to become the head. The Body of Christ must have one Head. Our part is to become cleansed of self and religion and saturated in the Holy Spirit. And become so one with God that we can clearly hear what Christ Jesus decides regarding any direction for ourselves, the group, or the Body. Decisions are made by the head. If we make them, we are the head. If He makes them, He is the head. More than "rethinking the wineskin" we must receive or become a new wineskin by the Spirit. We must receive from the Holy Spirit bringing the things of our True Head and not rehashing thoughts and principles in our own head. Walking in the Spirit means being led by the Spirit. There is no substitute for hearing God. The kingdom is relational. We must have the transforming input from many gifted servants of God. Kingdom of God apostles (foundational servants) of God all carry the basic revelation of the kingdom of God coming forth in the Body of Christ on earth by the Holy Spirit, but they also each have different emphasis or parts of that revelation to impart by the Holy Spirit to the Body. To adhere too closely to one apostle's ministry at the exclusion of the additional impartation of others leaves the Body incomplete. Apostles are sent ones with foundational impartation of the kingdom of God. They have a much broader part than only starting local groups and nurturing them. That is indeed part of what church planting apostles accomplish. Apostles generally have the gifting to function in all five servant gifts. They can function as prophets, evangelist, shepherds, and teachers but in addition carry a foundational reality of the kingdom and may be more involved in imparting their portion of the kingdom than only starting groups. Pursue Love, It Never Fails, Lots of Love, Ron McGatlin Back to Top Carl Thomas New Member Joined: 09/28/2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2 Posted: 01/06/2006 at 7:08am | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The biggest challenge I have to this type of teaching is that it is reactionary instead of foundational. The Gospel is unchanging. It does not adapt to popular culture. It is our job to make popular culture adapt to the Gospel. And in fact much of what we see in modern churches is amiss. But the answer is not to change the gospel to address these current short comings. It is to preach the unchanging Gospel. The Gospel has the power, not our arguments. Much of what I read in the house church movement is so clearly tainted by bitterness and judgment that it must be thoroughly de-boned before chewing. When I read, "2. It (Preaching) was delivered on special occasions in order to deal with specific problems.” You would have to surmise that preaching is only associated with problems. (You would also have to surmise that we could get to a place where there are no problems so preaching would not be necessary. Who would defend that any group of humans have gotten tot that point?) This is clearly false. Paul stated that he was ordained a preacher and an Apostle. Jesus told us to "preach the word." This is not just to correct problems. It is because there is power in the preached Word of God. "6. It is temporary. Regular preaching is designed to win the lost or equip the church. Once equipped, the members of the church minister one to another." Isn't this the same argument that cessationists use regarding the gifts? This is the same elitism that we saw (and still see) in much of the prophetic movement. There are two classes, the super spiritual who "get it" and then the rest of the peons. The fact is that God is leading people to those greatly dysfunctional churches. People are receiving a call from God to be in leadership in those churches. God is sending people to seminary and bible college. You can debate WHY He is doing it but you cannot debate that He IS doing it. And I can assure you that He is not telling one group that modern church buildings need to all be bulldozed while abiding in many of those same buildings when the people join in fellowship there. Either he hates them or He does not. The House Church movement has much to offer the Body and its influence will only grow. The message of the priesthood of the believer is a valid, vital one and needs to be preached. But to taint the message with past failures and prejudices only minimizes its effectiveness and delays its embrace. deboned Edit... Ignore all Add to dictionary secessionists secessionist's secessionist sociolinguists Edit... Ignore all Add to dictionary sarcasm sarcasms sarcasm's Edit... Revert to "sarcasim" __________________ Back to Top byron wilson New Member Joined: 01/15/2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 Posted: 01/15/2007 at 8:33pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- here what i have to say about some of the rebuttle on pagan church specificaly the point on apostle. if you read the book of acts it clearly shows an apostle does set up churches not that a person can't meet because in some of franks other material on his web site he explains in his testimony that he was sent from his group out into ministry i believe God raises up people with in groups of people who's hearts are after God and not holding onto to things from the institutional church..the reformation has not stopped at a building. this type of teaching is foundational because its not about some man at the top in control of everybody...its about the body ...here's a qoute from a person who has posted to come to his house church.... 1Co 14:26 So what does this mean, brothers and sisters? When you gather, each person has a psalm, doctrine, revelation, another language, or an interpretation. Everything must be done to help each other grow. 1Co 1:5 For in union with Christ you have become rich in all things, including all speech and all knowledge. 1Jo 2:27 But as for you, Christ has poured out his Spirit on you. As long as his Spirit remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you. For his Spirit teaches you about everything, and what he teaches is true, not false. Obey the Spirit's teaching, then, and remain in union with Christ. And Simple house church and the simple gospel is what we are about. i don't know frank viola personaly, however it bears witness with my spirit. just go to his web site and he explains with a lot of his teachings there...i believe he does not hate people its the system not the people. remember even though i have faith to remove mountains but have not love i am nothing...1st cor 13... Back to Top David Yeubanks New Member Joined: 11/22/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4 Posted: 01/15/2007 at 9:57pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi guys, I'm note sure that anyone here has suggested that house churchers want to blow up church buildings, nor do I think anyone has said that Frank Viola hates people. Frank's my bruthaaah in Christ and I love the guy. I am also so very thankful for the valuable contributions he has made to the body of Christ. If any of my criticism about his views on "church planting" made it sound as though I was speaking derogatorily about Frank as a valuable fellow brother in Christ I apologize. I simply disagree with that logic. Rather than bore everyone with another long-winded post (grin), I would just like to recommend a couple of articles that handle this subject far more eloquently than I. God bless! :) In His grip, Dave http://prayershack.freeservers.com/article_thechurchplanter. html http://prayershack.freeservers.com/article_startingachurch.h tml Back to Top Donna Taylor New Member Joined: 01/19/2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 Posted: 02/13/2007 at 12:41pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello all just to clarify, apostles "in" the church does not have to mean an organized group, as someone has suggested; the church is us, the people, and I am "in the church" whether or not I belong to a group. Just a point to ponder. __________________ Mama Donna Kingdom truth, a light in darkness Back to Top David Yeubanks New Member Joined: 11/22/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4 Posted: 02/13/2007 at 1:52pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excellent point Donna! The problem I think most people make when they think about gifts of service to the body of Christ (i.e. apostles, prophets, teachers, etc.) is they are stuck in a boxed concept of what the Church is. They are always envisioning four walls or some small group. But when you think of the Church as simply what Scripture describes - the Body of Christ - you can understand how these gifts would manifest in various ways throughout all the body of Christ. Ephesians 4 is not a recipe for how to start a church and set up its little government. All of these things express themselves relationally and organically in the Body according the Spirits work in and through us - regardless of meeting places and programs. Good points Donna! :) Back to Top Denise Detwiler Senior Member Joined: 01/10/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2896 Posted: 07/15/2008 at 7:09pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real church has very little to do with the size, shape, color, location, venue, and so forth.....it's the way in which it functions and the heart and nature and character of it. It also mentions in Acts the Christians meeting daily in the temple and in synogogues (at least the Jewish ones) as well as house to house. Things happened in different venues among Gentile believers who didn't get into Synogogues nor the temple much. Their cultural differences were ok so long as they were not immoral or impure in some way. And it's very true that nowhere in the New Testament nor the Old does Jesus or God nor anyone else ever state that one should no longer meet daily or however often one is moved to - in larger temple-like gatherings or in small home gatherings. This doesn't make it more nor less real church. When we have a business meeting it could be gathered round a person's desk, standing or sitting together in an open large room with one or more people leading it and the leaders may either stand or sit. others may mostly listen or may speak more or ask questions. there could be a meeting in our official conference room and the speaker may place their papers or laptop on a pedestal to hold it up. or may sit. one may speak mostly teaching and in other instances the meeting of the minds may go on in lively discussion...none of these are more nor less real business meetings. what defines them as a business meeting is what happens in the meeting. Edited by Denise Detwiler on 07/15/2008 at 7:10pm __________________ Blessings! denise Back to Top Steve Eastman Moderator Group Joined: 01/14/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 420 Posted: 07/16/2008 at 4:14pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simply moving a service into a home does not necessarily make the church any more Biblical. If there were a way to have a high degree of individual involvement in a larger facility, a larger facility would do well. I Corinthians 14: 26a (NKJV) tells us, “How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.” It is difficult to imagine how that that could happen in a group bigger than a dozen or two. Along the same line, Galatians 4:11-12 (NKJV) says, “And he gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” We see here a picture of mentorship, the more experienced in ministry helping the less experienced get more experienced. The mentored would then become the mentors to new believers in their midst. Jesus warned against the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in Revelation 2:6. As Frank Viola mentions, the Greek translation means conquering the people. It describes a system in which the clergy has permanent dominance over the laity. At its worst, the people lose their ability to minister. For a church to succeed, following Biblical patterns is not enough. Following purposes or principles is a cheap substitute for learning to hear the voice of the Lord for ourselves. The written word, logos, tells us what God has said. The contemporary prophetic word, rhema, tells us what He is saying now. The logos enables us to tell if the supposed rhema goes outside Biblical limits. The rhema tells us things the Bible never could, such as a word of knowledge for a particular person. We also need to consider that we all see in part. God has many streams he works through. None of them have discovered all the truth. Some churches are more worship-oriented than others. Some move in the prophetic more. Some hit the streets and strongly reach people where they live. Some see fantastic miracles of healing. God is at the cutting edge, moving through His people wherever they are. It comes down to an individual choice informed by God’s rhema word to each of us. God doesn’t have to explain to me why he is moving through this or that group. He doesn’t have to explain to them why He’s working through me. God can also come up with an idea we haven’t heard before. But as we all grow closer to Jesus, I believe we will be growing more and more alike. House church, although a Biblical pattern, is not a requirement. But at its best, it‘s a wonderful way to foster every-member functioning, mentoring into ministry and intimacy with God. Steve Eastman Edited by Ron McGatlin on 07/17/2008 at 2:58pm Back to Top Steve Eastman Moderator Group Joined: 01/14/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 420 Posted: 07/17/2008 at 3:53pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will try once again to explain what I was saying, but do not think it profitable to belabor the point beyond this. If you’re looking for light on the house church question, I hope this helps you along your journey. If your mind is made up, this will not benefit you. I Corinthians 14:26 mentions five means by which brethren may minister to one another – a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation and an interpretation. As noted by Denise, there seem to be limits of a maximum of three prophecies in a meeting. There is also an apparent limit of three tongues, and by implication, three interpretations. If we assume prophecies and revelation as equivalent (they may or may not be), we are left with psalms and teaching. I think it’s safe to say most tongues and interpretations, as well as prophecies, take a minute or less. Psalms (think songs in modern vernacular) are typically around three minutes, but often run longer. Teachings could be short (3 minutes), but can also last much longer. Denise mentioned that other gifts function as well, but for the sake of discussion, we will stick with the ones that Paul says should occur every time the church comes together. As we do the math, we see that for a church of 60 to 70 people (let’s pick 65), the three tongue speakers may typically take a minute each with three interpreters also taking a minute each. Three prophets may take a minute each. So far, 9 people have used a total 9 minutes. 56 people are left for the longer activities. 56 people at three minutes each use a total of 168 minutes. Adding in the 9 minutes mentioned above, a total of 177 minutes, or nearly 3 hours has been used in a service. The figures I use are conservative and certainly a case could be made for a much longer service. In a church of 200 people, 582 minutes, or almost 9 hours and 45 minutes would be needed. In a mega-church (which begins at 2000 members), nearly 5,982 minutes would be required for every-member functioning. The service will have lasted for more than 4 days. That is why I say it would be difficult to imagine what Paul described as happening in a gathering of more than a dozen or two. There were 120 gathered together on the day of Pentecost, which many consider the church’s birthday. 3,000 were added to the church that day. After that they met in houses where each one could grow. Later still, Paul gave his instructions. The Greek widows were being neglected in the daily ministrations. The twelve summoned the multitude of disciples to deal with the issue. If the multitude regularly gathered together as a group, there would have been no need to call a special meeting to deal with the problem. In Galatians 4:11-12, Paul urges the Galatians to become like him. That is a good example of mentoring. But Paul did not hang around in Galatia or any of his other church plants very long. He left churches in their infancy so believers would learn to look to Jesus, and not him, as their spiritual source. There is no conflict between that kind of mentorship and the warning against the Nicolaitans. I have no new revelation about the church growing more and more alike. The credit for that idea goes to St. Paul. II Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” As we look more like the image of Christ, we also look more like each other. Paul’s statement was not made to those who only believe in Christ as a mere human being. We see house church in scripture. We do not see anything similar to the modern institutional church. That doesn’t mean the institutional church is wrong. God is using it, but I would hate to have to defend it from an argument of Biblical silence. Steve Eastman Back to Top Denise Detwiler Senior Member Joined: 01/10/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 2896 Posted: 07/17/2008 at 5:13pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amen Steve! It's very important to meet in smaller, closer settings, and much of it in houses. Jesus Himself demonstrated this idea to us, He met in many venues. I also agree that church for me is so utterly beyond some institutional format and growing farther beyond that...that really I have no desire to return to it. I would only go if He sent me specifically. I know He has some real people planted in these settings and in fact one of these works for me. And her family are actually reformers - she and her hubby are sort of under cover supports set to support the leaders who are getting revelation and trying to bring more reality...He gives them special grace for this task and they were specially designed for it. I have really become far simpler in the past few years, so will need to trust you on all the technicalities. the guideline of having two or the most 3 prophets sharing words, with the rest of the prophets evaluating those words was not meant to be a rigid format. I used to believe this. God sort of gently eased me out of it and into the more organic functioning. There's just so much awesome opportunity to function in the simple and organic body than in the specator type setting! I love the way He is bringing His church forward into fuller function. The Spirit and nature of when real church is happening first came my way in the midst of a house-based expression. I have been breathtaken of late as He is lovingly drawing us deeper and deeper into the real thing and it's beyond what I could have ever imagined...and yet so utterly simple and supernaturally natural and real. I long in many ways to be in a place in my own life once again where I can still more connect with others in the Lord, more than the several times a month I am doing now....it's just so wonderful! I must reiterate that we need to be in settings small enough to develop healthy intimacy and grow in functioning. As much as I love the larger coming together, and more and more so as more of us simple down and Spirit up...we need it all. And we all need to step in very deeply and not isolate, from Him first and foremost and also one another. __________________ Blessings! denise Back to Top Ti Anna Sheaves Full Member Joined: 07/27/2008 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 15 Posted: 07/27/2008 at 8:28pm | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thankyou! Thankyou! Thankyou!!! This has been in my heart for quite some time that, something was wrong, even in the penticostal type churches, there is too much control. They go so far then hit a brick wall and get stuck it seems... I have been in the privaliage of the Lord to experience the flow of the Holy Spirit the way Frank Viola describes and it's the MOST beautiful expression of the presence of God working through the whole body of Christ. I also believe that all the funding to build mega churches should go directly to His church, the body of Christ...in the church of ACTS noone lacked anything...this also must come to pass... Thankyou for all the hard work you have researched, it's a blessing!!!! Now I know why I have been held back...THANK GOD!!!!! __________________ Freedom Back to Top Ching Alkuino Full Member Joined: 09/30/2007 Location: Philippines Online Status: Offline Posts: 32 Posted: 07/29/2008 at 11:02am | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hello everybody Thanks Steve for starting this thread. I love what you have to say brother. Hello David, I just cant resist posting a reply to your comments on the "church planter". The great commission doesnt say "...go and plant churches...", but "...go and make disciples of all nations..." This, I believe is what Paul understood to be the purpose for him being sent (or "Apostoled"). I read the article on the link you gave. Listed there are the many scriptures about preaching the gospel being the purpose for Paul being sent. My problem with that is the fact that many preachers today are NOT disciple makers. My bet is that Paul had a very different understanding of what it means to preach the gospel. Paul was not the eloquent orator-hiding-behind the-pulpit type. He was a disciple maker. Not his disciples but Jesus'. Such is the great commission, isnt it? Now about "church planting". The formation of churches/ekklesias are the result of Paul's disciple-making. Am I right in saying that true discipleship can happen only in small groups or communities? It is there in small groups that a believer learns to follow Jesus. Indeed the believers learn to follow Jesus as a group. True humility. Bearing with one another in love. Accepting one another. Resolving conflicts. Loving one another inspite and despite. Hearing the Lord , discerning His leadings together. This, I believe was Paul's and every modern "Sent-one's" goal is: to establish disciple-making communities (A.k.a ekklesias/churches) wherever the Lord sends them. As a sent one, Paul had a very clear idea what God has called him to do. Notice how after laying the foundation, he would leave. After establishing small household groups into living faith in Christ, he would leave. Why? Because its not his job to build the Body. Along with the prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors, the sent-one's job is to equip the holy ones to function and minister. It's the Body that builds the Body. Ephesians 4;16 says that the Body builds itself up in love as each part does its work! This is the error of many modern day senior pastors. Sunday after sunday, month after month, year after year, the senior pastor preaches faithfully with the goal of building the Body of Christ. You know what this type of system does? It's like tigers born in captivity. They are born with insticts to hunt and kill, but pretty soon they are tamed. Insticts suppressed, they learn to sit passivly waiting for the zoo keeper to feed them. If you release them in the jungle? They will die. They dont know how to feed themselves! The're easy targets for hunters as they dont know how to hide. The first century believers in the churches that Paul and others "planted" were like tigers born in the wild. Paul left them and they grew and multiplied. They fed one another. they built/edified, encouraged one another daily. When we believe and receive Christ we are born again/born from above. We instictively have the desire to love people and minister. We instictively desire God. To know Him and make Him known. We have this "divine instincts" the moment we got born again. New testament styled churches where everybody is free and expected to share and minister Christ is the proper invironment to hone such divine instincts. Institutional churches where only one man does the talking and everybody else is required to shut up, listen and look cute, is pretty much like a zoo. Its not conducive at all for disciple-making. Born in captivity. So, my point is... we really need modern "church planters", "apostles" or "sent-ones" whatever you want to call it. Such genuine gifts and functions are needed in order for us to fulfill the great commission; "...therefore GO, and as you GO, make disciples of all nations (ethnic groups)...baptizing them... teaching them to obey everything I commanded you..." Your brother Ching Alkuino __________________ Christ in us the only hope of our Father's glory! www.sidlakpinoy.com Back to Top David Yeubanks New Member Joined: 11/22/2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4 Posted: 08/13/2009 at 12:43am | IP Logged -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < http-equiv="Content-" content="text/; charset=utf-8">< name="ProgId" content="Word.">< name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">< name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">< id="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui> Thanks Ching for your comments. I guess I'm about a year late responding here, but I wasn't even aware until today that there was still activity on this forum subject. In response to your comments, I appreciate your thoughts and understand your argument. I think you make an interesting point in suggesting that “going and making disciples” was essentially what Paul understood as being the purpose for his calling. I think that perspective has merit and is in harmony with the account of Scripture. However, I still think that to push that concept to the point where we imagine a character known as a “church planter”, even to the point of calling such a character “essential” is going too far. I guess my first question to you would be, “who discipled Paul after His conversion and what church was he planted in?” And for that matter, “Who revealed the Gospel to and converted Paul?” I don’t recall there being any “church planter” in the mix or any “church” at all that played a role in this. Jesus Christ Himself did the work and Galatians chapter 1 tells us that Paul’s discipleship and preparation to preach the Gospel was accomplished without the help of any man! Galatians 1:16-18 - Then he revealed his Son to me so that I could proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When all this happened to me, I did not rush out to consult with anyone else; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before I was. No, I went away into Arabia and later returned to the city of Damascus. It was not until three years later that I finally went to Jerusalem for a visit with Peter and stayed there with him for fifteen days. I also noticed that you make emphasis of something you call “ekklesias” (or “churches”), yet I do not believe there is any such concept in the New Testament as it pertains to the Lord’s ekklesia. Please note, I am not saying that there is never, technically, a plural form of “ekklesia” in the Greek, but my point is the reference – even when it is used in the plural (and that only a couple times) – it still holds a SINGULAR reference in concept. I will try to elaborate on this point to avoid confusion. In every case of the New Testament where we see this word "church" used in reference to believers, it is speaking of the Lord's Church (his ek-klesis or ecclesia). There are not many brides of Christ, there are not many bodies of Christ… There is only one. Paul spoke concerning the Church with such incredible singularity. Additionally, we never see this word "ecclesia" used in terms of an organization or a building or a denomination – it always, ALWAYS, is a direct reference to the people of God, born into His Kingdom through Christ Jesus. Paul wrote many letters to many people in different locations, but he spoke a singular message of there being only ONE BODY, which is the Lord's Church. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it is not accurate to say that Paul necessarily wrote letters to "churches" (nor that he “planted churches”) but rather he wrote letters to the Church (Ecclesia) represented in a given city and thereby encouraged them in the Faith. Though our English translations of the Bible often use the word "churches" (plural), the Greek remains "ecclesia" singular! The only exception to this rule is when the author is speaking to communities of believers within a massive region (e.g. the "churches" in Asia). This can be difficult to grasp for many because of the damage that has already been done with the common understanding of the meaning of the word church. There were seven cities in Asia, each one with a single, united community of believers in each city. Therefore the Scripture says, "to the churches in Asia". This is a plural referencing a singular (for lack of a better way to describe it). Again, ONE body of Christ but identified as present in each city. It is vital to understand these are NOT denominations (nor are they little “autonomous” groups that each had their own private “church planter” to work them into existence). It would be the same as saying that if you left Seattle and entered into Portland, you would then be among the Christians in that city. You haven't left the body of Christ or the Ecclesia/Church by leaving Seattle, but you are simply now among the body of Christ within another town. It matters not whether you visit some designated structure or meeting place because the word "Church" (as it is used in Scripture) has nothing to do with a place, a building or an organization. It certainly has nothing to do with a “church planter” – other than Christ Jesus Himself. It ONLY and ALWAYS has reference to PEOPLE in the singular context of ONE BODY in Christ. John 10:14-16 - "I am the Good Shepherd; I know My own sheep, and they know Me, just as My Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, too, that are not in this sheepfold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice; and there will be ONE FLOCK with ONE SHEPHERD. Ephesians 4:1-6 - Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling, for you have been called by God. Be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other's faults because of your love. Always keep yourselves united in the Holy Spirit, and bind yourselves together with peace. We are all ONE BODY, we have the same Spirit, and we have all been called to the same glorious future. There is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and there is only one God and Father, who is over us all and in us all and living through us all. Ephesians 5:29-30 - No one hates his own body but lovingly cares for it, just as Christ cares for his body, which is the church. And we are his body. Colossians 1:18 - Christ is the head of the church, which is his body. He is the first of all who will rise from the dead, so he is first in everything. Romans 12:4-5 - Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ's body. We are all parts of His ONE BODY, and each of us has different work to do. And since we are all ONE BODY in Christ, we belong to each other, and each of us needs all the others. Ephesians 1:21-23 - Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else in this world or in the world to come. And God has put all things under the authority of Christ, and he gave him this authority for the benefit of the church. And the church is his body; it is filled by Christ, who fills everything everywhere with his presence. Ephesians 4:15-16 - Instead, we will hold to the truth in love, becoming more and more in every way like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. Under his direction, the whole body is fitted together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love. Please understand, I am not saying that there are no “disciplers” within the body of Christ. I believe there are. And the Lord already told us what kind of workers exist within His body: 1 Corinthians 12:27-28 - Now all of you together are Christ's body, and each one of you is a separate and necessary part of it. Here is a list of some of the members that God has placed in the body of Christ: first are apostles, second are prophets, third are teachers, then those who do miracles, those who have the gift of healing, those who can help others, those who can get others to work together, those who speak in unknown languages. Ephesians 4:11 adds evangelists to the list as well. Yet at no time is there mention of any character known as a “church planter”. In my opinion, the reason is obvious. Jesus Himself said: Matthew 16:18 – “…upon this rock I will build My church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.” I really don’t think we are that far apart in our understanding here. I agree that Paul only laid down the foundation that had ALREADY been laid; He presented Christ to people and encouraged them in the Way of Truth. If that’s simply what you mean by being a “church planter” then I suppose I could digress a bit, but I don’t understand why there is so much adamancy against the way I am phrasing my argument and the point I am emphasizing (with the support of Scripture I might add). If we are both suggesting essentially the same truth, this is wonderful and praise God that we are both advocates of Christ being lifted up among His body; however, all I am adding is that brothers like Frank Viola have essentially created for themselves (and for others to follow) a new (biblically unsanctioned) “position of ministry”. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were simply that they felt they had an individual role given them by God to function in a specific way that they were simply trying to be obedient to, BUT the problem is that they go beyond such simplicity and suggest to all that THEY are essential and that no one else can effectively grow in Christ – especially with other people – without their assistance. I have examined the rhetoric very carefully and heard the messages those who ascribe this doctrine preach at conferences. This emphasis appears to primarily serve in validating themselves and therefore maintain their “occupation” by suggesting that such is required of God, when NO SUCH INSTRUCTION, ACTIVITY OR EXAMPLE OF THIS DOCTRINE EXISTS IN THE PAGES OF SCRIPTURE! If you or anyone will continue to suggest to me otherwise, I charge you by God to prove it by evidence of God’s Word. You cannot because such does not exist! Why not be content with whatever calling an individual feels they have received by God; especially if it be to go to groups of believers and help encourage them in their walk with Christ. That much I applaud and encourage – especially as it concerns brothers like Frank Viola! As I said before, I have thoroughly enjoyed many of his writings and I have also talked with him on the phone and through e-mail. I do not suppose he is a sinister person who intends harm to the body of Christ. My problem is with this concept of “church planter” he and others espouse. I, personally, believe it is untenable. So why, if a brother receives a call by God to build up the body of Christ, why does that person need to present a new “office” for themselves (and, make no mistake, that’s essentially what it is – the same old religious elitist garbage in new clothes) and then boldly declare to everyone that it is impossible to grow up properly in the faith without their assistance. This part of the equation, I’m sorry to say it so bluntly, is a flat out lie. It is arrogance, in my opinion. I cannot accept it. It requires you to assume MUCH in-between the lines and excuse the plain truth that is clearly presented before us in the account of Scripture. Again, this is my strong conviction. But I will take it even a step further; I think all this emphasis on “establishing communities” and “house churches” and all of this subject is way over-emphasized and virtually amounts (or at least can amount) to idolatry! I am NOT saying that meeting together in a home is idolatry, nor am I saying that the inspiring potential of real Christian community is without value. But it is this over-emphasis on trying to find the “right pattern” to “do church” that I think is misguided and mistrusting of the Holy Spirit to do what He (and He alone) does best! God is the assembler of His Assembly. Paul so plainly said in 2 Corinthians 11:3 – “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Let me tell you something straight from the heart; Living for Jesus is not that complicated a task! I am not saying the road is without its struggles and hardships. But I am saying JESUS IS LORD OF MY LIFE and that fact alone is sufficient. I am just dumb enough to believe that the Lord is well able, by the work of His Holy Spirit, to draw hearts together in fellowship as He so desires and to the measure that individuals are willing. Remember what John said (1 John 2:26-27), “These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” We don’t need to get overly hyped about trying to figure out the proper way to “do church” or run around in circles like chickens with our heads cut off because we are anxious that we don’t have an official church planter to teach us how to live in Christ and function together. Such high-minded nonsense! I have far more faith in God’s ability to manage His assembly than I do in man’s lofty concept of spiritual fathering. I’ve seen that evil work on both sides of the religious fence and I will do whatever I can to persuade people away from its snare. People who long for intimacy with Christ and are seeking Him first, will find Him and God will not forsake them or leave them to be ravaged by wolves. If you are a true follower of Jesus, you have to believe that otherwise what hope have you really got? I certainly do not want any part of a doctrine that says the Lord is not sufficient and that really is the core of what this doctrine presents, in my opinion. John 10:27-29 - "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.” Matthew 23:12 - But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. 1 Corinthians 3:7 - The ones who do the planting or watering aren't important, but God is important because he is the one who makes the seed grow. If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login If you are not already registered you must first register Printable version Forum Jump -- Select Forum -- OpenHeaven.com Christian Forums - OPENHEAVEN.COM DIGEST ARCHIVES - KINGDOM/APOSTOLIC Transformation & Reformation ARTICLES & Discussion - VOICE OF PROPHECY - Prophetic Words - PERSONAL SHARING - Fellowship, Encouragement, Devotional Words, POETRY, Lyrics & Pictures - TOP NEWS - Worldwide Kingdom/Revival NEWS - ARTICLES and Discussion - PASTORS ANONYMOUS - Pastors Supporting Pastors in Transition - The Changing Church - ORGANIC CHURCH Discussion & Articles - CURRENT REVIVAL REPORTS AND DISCUSSION - From Around GOD'S NETWORK - Reports & Missions - PRAYER Initiatives & Requests - CURRENT EVENTS DISCUSSION - Current Book Reviews by Steve Eastman - Encountering Life's Issues - Is there a God? Is God real? - KINGDOM GROWTH GUIDES - Old Kingdom/Revival/Apostolic Articles 2002 - 2007