God and Church Government
Few issues have caused more division within the Christian community than the question of how best to govern the Church. As with all human organizations, humans have devised and employed a number of different systems to govern their members, decide on policy and provide for the implementation of those policies. Most of these systems follow some variation of an authoritarian or democratic model. Theopedia suggests that Christian Church governance has followed three basic formats: episcopal, presbyterian and congregational. https://www.theopedia.com/church-government A popular tome on the subject suggests that there are five basic formulas that have been employed in Church governance. http://www.bpnews.net/19143 Interestingly, all of these formats were devised by humans to rule over humans, and each one of them has produced apologists that appeal to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to support the model which they believe most closely represents God's will in the matter.
Although the group which I formerly affiliated with (Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God) initially rejected the Roman Catholic hierarchical system with its dependence on the "Primacy of Peter," over time, Mr. Armstrong embraced that teaching and adopted his own version of the hierarchical system which it supported. In his book, Mystery of the Ages, Mr. Armstrong recounted his experiences during his association with the "Church of God, Seventh Day" (and prior to founding his own church) regarding divisions over church governance (pp 241-242). Then, after a brief survey of the government within various Christian denominations (p 242), he concluded with a characterization of the Biblical evidence regarding Church governance: "Notice especially, there is only the ONE CHURCH. Not MANY churches. The CHURCH is not divided. There is only one Church. Not a parent church and many little daughter churches that have split off in disagreement. Divisions splintering off are NOT STILL IN THE CHURCH. It is the CHURCH that is to marry Christ in the resurrection at his coming - not disagreeing churches - not groups who have broken off! Not a parent church and apostate daughters." (p 243) Of course, Mr. Armstrong did not see this last statement as applying to his own actions when he separated from the "Church of God, Seventh Day" and founded his own group! Finally, he summarized the Biblical evidence as demonstrating that: "The CHURCH is organized under theocratic government, hierarchical in form. The members do not set officials in the Church. God sets EVEN THE LAY MEMBERS in the Church (I Cor. 12:18)."
Was Herbert Armstrong's characterization of the Biblical evidence regarding Church governance correct? And, since his Worldwide Church of God no longer exists, do any of its daughters (Grace Communion International, United Church of God, Restored Church of God, Living Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, COGWA, CGI, etc.) meet the criteria laid out in Mr. Armstrong's statements quoted above? Have any of them continued the Church government model established by him without amendment? Are the Roman Catholics correct? Where did the Presbyterians and Baptists get the models which are employed within those organizations?
Although most of these groups appeal to Scripture to justify their different systems of governance, the Biblical record indicates that YHWH/God has never been very enamored with human notions about government! Sure, under the terms of the Old Covenant, YHWH established a priesthood and created the office of High Priest; but that priesthood was tasked with performing rituals and was largely dependent on the support of the Israelites. Yes, eventually, the office of High Priest was joined to the office of king under the Hasmoneans, but where is that sanctioned in Scripture? One whole book of the Bible (Judges), tells the story of a loose confederation of tribes judged (not ruled) by an itinerant justice. Indeed, at the end of that book, this entire period of Israel's history is summarized with the statement: "In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." (Judges 21:25) "Yes, Lonnie, but what about what followed?" some may ask.
Scripture tells us that it wasn't YHWH's idea to terminate the system of judges. On the contrary, Scripture records that the leaders of the various tribes came to the last judge (Samuel) and asked him to appoint a king to rule over them (I Samuel 8:1-5). What was YHWH's reaction? "'Do everything they say to you,' the Lord replied, 'for they are rejecting me, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer. Ever since I brought them from Egypt they have continually abandoned me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them.'" (verses 7-9) Thus, we are informed that Samuel told them that their king would draft their sons to serve him in war, take their daughters to serve in his harem, confiscate their land and tax their wealth (verses 10-18). Hence, not only was it NOT YHWH's idea to give them a king, we are told that he ordered Samuel to warn them about just how oppressive their new system of governance would be!
Most of the remainder of the Hebrew Old Testament relates the story of the failure of the kings who followed the judges (including the very first one to fill that office, Saul)! Indeed, we know that the kingdom was eventually divided and mostly misruled thereafter. Scripture tells us that YHWH used a series of prophets to warn the kings and their people to forsake their evil ways and return to him before it was too late. We are informed, nevertheless, that the kings and their people refused to heed those warnings and were eventually conquered by their more powerful neighbors. Thus, the entire history of human governance recorded in the Old Testament was quite purposefully divorced from YHWH (except in the instance of certain Gentile rulers which were used to punish Israel or otherwise carry out some purpose of His) and characterized as a failure by the human authors of those writings.
What about the New Testament? Didn't God take a more active role in the governance of the Christian Congregation than he had for the Congregation in the Wilderness? Once again, lets examine the scriptural evidence for ourselves.
In the writings known as the Gospel according to Matthew, we are told that Christ addressed the issue of leadership among his disciples. We read there that he told them: "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
After criticizing the leadership of the Pharisees, Jesus said: "Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)
Now all four of the gospel accounts make plain that Christ personally selected and designated twelve men to serve as apostolos to carry his message to the world. There is, however, no indication within these accounts that the designation carried any governmental authority. Indeed, the sense of the Greek word employed in this instance is one sent forth with a message, nothing more. Moreover, Christ's final instructions to these men reflect that mission of carrying his message to the world and making new disciples, baptizing them and teaching them about how a Christian was supposed to live (see Matthew 28:18-20 and John 21:15-17).
Naturally, over time, the role of these apostolos expanded within the Christian community. After all, they had been personally chosen and taught by Christ himself - a designation that only one other man (Paul) could subsequently lay legitimate claim to). Subsequently, we read in the writings known as the Acts of the Apostles that these men took it upon themselves to replace Judas, carried out Christ's final instructions, called at least one council to settle disputes that had arisen over the Church's expansion into Gentile regions, designated certain individuals to serve within the Jerusalem congregation, collected donations and met with local elders of the various congregations which they had founded and visited.
In the various epistles which follow the account of the early Church in Acts, it is also clear that the apostolos assumed more duties and authority over time. In similar fashion, the elders within each congregation assumed greater importance over time. Nevertheless, Paul, Peter and John made clear in the epistles attributed to them that they intended that the model of servant leadership established by Christ should continue within the Church.
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul stressed the importance of leading by example. He wrote: "'If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position.' So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach. He must not be a heavy drinker or be violent. He must be gentle, not quarrelsome, and not love money. He must manage his own family well, having children who respect and obey him. For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? A church leader must not be a new believer, because he might become proud, and the devil would cause him to fall. Also, people outside the church must speak well of him so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the devil’s trap. In the same way, deacons must be well respected and have integrity. They must not be heavy drinkers or dishonest with money. They must be committed to the mystery of the faith now revealed and must live with a clear conscience. Before they are appointed as deacons, let them be closely examined. If they pass the test, then let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not slander others. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do. A deacon must be faithful to his wife, and he must manage his children and household well. Those who do well as deacons will be rewarded with respect from others and will have increased confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 3:1-12)
Likewise, in the first epistle attributed to Peter, we read: "And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the whole world. As a fellow elder, I appeal to you: Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly—not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example. And when the Great Shepherd appears, you will receive a crown of never-ending glory and honor." (I Peter 5:1-4)
Finally, in his third epistle, John wrote about a Church leader named Diotrephes "who loves to be the leader, refuses to have anything to do with us." (verse 9) He continued: "When I come, I will report some of the things he is doing and the evil accusations he is making against us. Not only does he refuse to welcome the traveling teachers, he also tells others not to help them. And when they do help, he puts them out of the church." (verse 10) He goes on to characterize this as a bad example of leadership which should not be emulated by anyone in a position of leadership within the Church. (verse 11) In other words, this authoritarian model should not be imitated by other Church leaders!
Hence, when we review the evidence from the perspective of the Old and New Testaments, we are forced to conclude that those Scriptures reject human notions about government and decline to endorse ANY of the various systems devised by man for that purpose. Indeed, noted New Testament scholar George Eldon Ladd once stated: "It appears likely that there was no normative pattern of church government in the apostolic age, and that the organizational structure of the church is no essential element in the theology of the church." Thus, sincere Christians everywhere, should be highly suspicious of anyone who seeks to underscore the importance of Church government and attempts to employ the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to support their claims in that regard.
Although the group which I formerly affiliated with (Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God) initially rejected the Roman Catholic hierarchical system with its dependence on the "Primacy of Peter," over time, Mr. Armstrong embraced that teaching and adopted his own version of the hierarchical system which it supported. In his book, Mystery of the Ages, Mr. Armstrong recounted his experiences during his association with the "Church of God, Seventh Day" (and prior to founding his own church) regarding divisions over church governance (pp 241-242). Then, after a brief survey of the government within various Christian denominations (p 242), he concluded with a characterization of the Biblical evidence regarding Church governance: "Notice especially, there is only the ONE CHURCH. Not MANY churches. The CHURCH is not divided. There is only one Church. Not a parent church and many little daughter churches that have split off in disagreement. Divisions splintering off are NOT STILL IN THE CHURCH. It is the CHURCH that is to marry Christ in the resurrection at his coming - not disagreeing churches - not groups who have broken off! Not a parent church and apostate daughters." (p 243) Of course, Mr. Armstrong did not see this last statement as applying to his own actions when he separated from the "Church of God, Seventh Day" and founded his own group! Finally, he summarized the Biblical evidence as demonstrating that: "The CHURCH is organized under theocratic government, hierarchical in form. The members do not set officials in the Church. God sets EVEN THE LAY MEMBERS in the Church (I Cor. 12:18)."
Was Herbert Armstrong's characterization of the Biblical evidence regarding Church governance correct? And, since his Worldwide Church of God no longer exists, do any of its daughters (Grace Communion International, United Church of God, Restored Church of God, Living Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, COGWA, CGI, etc.) meet the criteria laid out in Mr. Armstrong's statements quoted above? Have any of them continued the Church government model established by him without amendment? Are the Roman Catholics correct? Where did the Presbyterians and Baptists get the models which are employed within those organizations?
Although most of these groups appeal to Scripture to justify their different systems of governance, the Biblical record indicates that YHWH/God has never been very enamored with human notions about government! Sure, under the terms of the Old Covenant, YHWH established a priesthood and created the office of High Priest; but that priesthood was tasked with performing rituals and was largely dependent on the support of the Israelites. Yes, eventually, the office of High Priest was joined to the office of king under the Hasmoneans, but where is that sanctioned in Scripture? One whole book of the Bible (Judges), tells the story of a loose confederation of tribes judged (not ruled) by an itinerant justice. Indeed, at the end of that book, this entire period of Israel's history is summarized with the statement: "In those days Israel had no king; all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." (Judges 21:25) "Yes, Lonnie, but what about what followed?" some may ask.
Scripture tells us that it wasn't YHWH's idea to terminate the system of judges. On the contrary, Scripture records that the leaders of the various tribes came to the last judge (Samuel) and asked him to appoint a king to rule over them (I Samuel 8:1-5). What was YHWH's reaction? "'Do everything they say to you,' the Lord replied, 'for they are rejecting me, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer. Ever since I brought them from Egypt they have continually abandoned me and followed other gods. And now they are giving you the same treatment. Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them.'" (verses 7-9) Thus, we are informed that Samuel told them that their king would draft their sons to serve him in war, take their daughters to serve in his harem, confiscate their land and tax their wealth (verses 10-18). Hence, not only was it NOT YHWH's idea to give them a king, we are told that he ordered Samuel to warn them about just how oppressive their new system of governance would be!
Most of the remainder of the Hebrew Old Testament relates the story of the failure of the kings who followed the judges (including the very first one to fill that office, Saul)! Indeed, we know that the kingdom was eventually divided and mostly misruled thereafter. Scripture tells us that YHWH used a series of prophets to warn the kings and their people to forsake their evil ways and return to him before it was too late. We are informed, nevertheless, that the kings and their people refused to heed those warnings and were eventually conquered by their more powerful neighbors. Thus, the entire history of human governance recorded in the Old Testament was quite purposefully divorced from YHWH (except in the instance of certain Gentile rulers which were used to punish Israel or otherwise carry out some purpose of His) and characterized as a failure by the human authors of those writings.
What about the New Testament? Didn't God take a more active role in the governance of the Christian Congregation than he had for the Congregation in the Wilderness? Once again, lets examine the scriptural evidence for ourselves.
In the writings known as the Gospel according to Matthew, we are told that Christ addressed the issue of leadership among his disciples. We read there that he told them: "You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)
After criticizing the leadership of the Pharisees, Jesus said: "Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters. And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your Father. And don’t let anyone call you ‘Teacher,’ for you have only one teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you must be a servant. But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (Matthew 23:8-12)
Now all four of the gospel accounts make plain that Christ personally selected and designated twelve men to serve as apostolos to carry his message to the world. There is, however, no indication within these accounts that the designation carried any governmental authority. Indeed, the sense of the Greek word employed in this instance is one sent forth with a message, nothing more. Moreover, Christ's final instructions to these men reflect that mission of carrying his message to the world and making new disciples, baptizing them and teaching them about how a Christian was supposed to live (see Matthew 28:18-20 and John 21:15-17).
Naturally, over time, the role of these apostolos expanded within the Christian community. After all, they had been personally chosen and taught by Christ himself - a designation that only one other man (Paul) could subsequently lay legitimate claim to). Subsequently, we read in the writings known as the Acts of the Apostles that these men took it upon themselves to replace Judas, carried out Christ's final instructions, called at least one council to settle disputes that had arisen over the Church's expansion into Gentile regions, designated certain individuals to serve within the Jerusalem congregation, collected donations and met with local elders of the various congregations which they had founded and visited.
In the various epistles which follow the account of the early Church in Acts, it is also clear that the apostolos assumed more duties and authority over time. In similar fashion, the elders within each congregation assumed greater importance over time. Nevertheless, Paul, Peter and John made clear in the epistles attributed to them that they intended that the model of servant leadership established by Christ should continue within the Church.
In his first letter to Timothy, Paul stressed the importance of leading by example. He wrote: "'If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position.' So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach. He must not be a heavy drinker or be violent. He must be gentle, not quarrelsome, and not love money. He must manage his own family well, having children who respect and obey him. For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God’s church? A church leader must not be a new believer, because he might become proud, and the devil would cause him to fall. Also, people outside the church must speak well of him so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the devil’s trap. In the same way, deacons must be well respected and have integrity. They must not be heavy drinkers or dishonest with money. They must be committed to the mystery of the faith now revealed and must live with a clear conscience. Before they are appointed as deacons, let them be closely examined. If they pass the test, then let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives must be respected and must not slander others. They must exercise self-control and be faithful in everything they do. A deacon must be faithful to his wife, and he must manage his children and household well. Those who do well as deacons will be rewarded with respect from others and will have increased confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 3:1-12)
Likewise, in the first epistle attributed to Peter, we read: "And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the whole world. As a fellow elder, I appeal to you: Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly—not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. Don’t lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example. And when the Great Shepherd appears, you will receive a crown of never-ending glory and honor." (I Peter 5:1-4)
Finally, in his third epistle, John wrote about a Church leader named Diotrephes "who loves to be the leader, refuses to have anything to do with us." (verse 9) He continued: "When I come, I will report some of the things he is doing and the evil accusations he is making against us. Not only does he refuse to welcome the traveling teachers, he also tells others not to help them. And when they do help, he puts them out of the church." (verse 10) He goes on to characterize this as a bad example of leadership which should not be emulated by anyone in a position of leadership within the Church. (verse 11) In other words, this authoritarian model should not be imitated by other Church leaders!
Hence, when we review the evidence from the perspective of the Old and New Testaments, we are forced to conclude that those Scriptures reject human notions about government and decline to endorse ANY of the various systems devised by man for that purpose. Indeed, noted New Testament scholar George Eldon Ladd once stated: "It appears likely that there was no normative pattern of church government in the apostolic age, and that the organizational structure of the church is no essential element in the theology of the church." Thus, sincere Christians everywhere, should be highly suspicious of anyone who seeks to underscore the importance of Church government and attempts to employ the Judeo-Christian Scriptures to support their claims in that regard.
by Lonnie Hendrix
32 comments:
Call it whatever you want-Gods Family Government Servant leadership, or Team Based Organization one thing is clear-a heirarcy by any other name would still smell the same
The COGs have a tough time explaining away how James - the brother of Christ - rendered the final decision in Acts 15 when Peter was there.
WCG was very proud about being the one, undivided, true church - and not divided like the Catholics and Protestants.
I mentally left the WWCG while still attending services, when it became apparent that it's bully morally that's being taught and implemented at church services. The bible is only used as the sheep's clothing to deceive and disarm the victims.
The Den of Thieves Church of God.
Direct connection to the deities is best. Possibly with some knowledgable wise people without authority, around to set a quiet example. Most humans give in to the tendency to lord it over others the minute they get a little authority. It is one of life's general principles that you want to distance yourself from anyone who has been recently given rank, or elevated in rank. At least until they quit puffing out their chests and barking gratuitous orders.
BB
Tell me Ocelot, how do you justify all this double life living in your brain?
You are long standing member of heirarcy yourself.
Worldwide and unfortunately most of it's successors went along with cult of church government and its false gospel. It is amazing when reading the bible Christ only reference to government was to actually to state not to be like the dictators or despots of the world. Unfortunately HWA, Flurry the false prophet & others follow the Stalin model.
the whole "one man at the top government thing" was bogus from the start.
some like to claim that God has always worked through one man, but that is clearly not so.
He started with 12, then Paul made 13...each following Christ's instructions, none trying to "be the boss".
some organizations today try to portray themselves as the "one true church" because they have "the man" at the top.....well, the Church is One Body for sure, but it is not contained in any one single organization.
there are members sprinkled about in some of the organizations...they are the ones that truly understand (and that doesn't automatically include the ministers).
In the chart shown for this post it shows the "line of authority" under Jesus to be "HWA Apostle - ON EARTH".
So does this mean that if I move to Mars , paying with all of my worldly goods and savings to Elon Musk of Space X, for the privilege of being one of his first colonist to Mars, that Id finally be free from "HWAs authority on Earth"??
I , TONTO, can thus claim and declare that I am "God's Apostle on Mars".
May that day come soon!
In reading many of the comments I recognize that many if not most of church congregation are managed in a questionable way. The bible does point out that there is a need for leadership in church congregations. The question is just how it can be done? My personal experience is simple. The leader should have a close relationship with God through prayer and serious study of the written word. This relationship is not something that the leader shares with the congregation, but it is revealed in their daily living and communication with each individual they connect with. Everything a person does should contribute to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the glory of God not what we think about what people are doing and not doing.
I must say as one who wholly disdains the actions of men within a government structure in the COGs, this article is borderline dangerous for an active Christian to embrace in thought or belief or even in action.
The history of the rejection of all government throughout the bible is a stern warning to those who would like to follow in those same steps. The Devil was the first to reject the government of God, Adam and Eve followed with son Cain as well. The enslaved Hebrews who rejected the one man leadership of Moses because they would not have that man rein over them or all the Israelites who according to Christ killed all the prophets who were sent unto them. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ who proclaimed that the Kingdom of God had suffered violence in their time and both were killed with Christ being rejected as "King of Jews" because "they would not have that man reign over them".
From the end of the bible to the beginning, government is the major theme. The government structure of heaven as depicted in Revelation or the government structure of the garden of Eden, government is depicted in the pages of the bible. The Lord's example prayer "thy Kingdom come" and the "Kingdom" government with David as King and the disciples sitting on twelve thrones over the twelve tribes are more examples of government. What about the birth prophecy of Jesus Christ who it was said the government would be upon his shoulders or Enoch's prophecy about the Lord coming with ten thousands of his saints.
That is a brief picture given just from memory that government has been and is coming. With the whole of Israel being resurrected and the scattered of the COGs having a anti-government mindset form their experiences will men and women be able to embrace God or God ordained men in a government structure?
The ideal that HWA embraced concerning the the one true church model can't be a reality in this day and age with these leaders leading the COGs. The scattering took place over two thousand years ago and no man has completely brought all into one. That is the history of what unconverted and or unrepentant men have done within a government structure to the flock of God.
As Mr. Hendriks explained in this article, the established government example for spirit begotten members is to have godly men overseeing, guiding and nurturing their intercourse between themselves and their intercessor. If this isn't happening in a persons present COG, it is time to splinter anew or find it and get it right.
The mind set of being completely anti-government is Satan's mindset and "thy Kingdom (government) come are mere wasted words for a Christian who is waiting for what?
12.49 PM
'..Godly men overseeing, guiding, and nurturing their intercourse between themselves and their intercessor.' are nice pretty words. It like a tract from a Catholic church publication. First it patronizing. People aren't children who need big people holding their hand. It also sounds like ministers are trying to weasle themselves between members and Christ. But more fundamentally, the reality behind such nice sounding words is typically very different to the picture painted, ie, they are lying. It's instructional that such posts and articles leave out how to discern Gods lead in ones life. They hide information.
The one point I strongly agree with Dennis Diehl on is that the worst thing one can do is go to a minister with a problem. I learnt that the hard way.
Mark 10;42-43 says the great ones ruling over the gentiles exercise lordship over them and the great ones exercise authority over them. 43- But it shall not be this way among you: rather the one who desires to be great among you should be you're servant.
Just name me one minister who ever served you and did not expect to be served. Dis not Jesus come to serve and not to be served mark 10;45
Jesus came to serve and not be served. Read mark 10:42 to 46
So their should not be a minister lording it over you, a minister is to serve and not be served,
Otis said: Jesus came to serve and not be served. Read mark 10:42 to 46 So their should not be a minister lording it over you, a minister is to serve and not be served,
My comment: This is true but serving is a difficult word to apply in many situations. In a church congregation there are physical and spiritual categories. The one thing that has created a lot of problems is determining what physical things does the church need to be involved in. When a church attempts to dictate a whole life way of living it fails to recognize that we live in the world but spiritually are not to be a part of the world. While what we eat, what wear, what games we play, what movies we watch, and other cultural activities may need to be considered, they are not the important factors in life. The spiritual factors deal with our relationship with God and the people who share this relationship with God. If we are encouraging one another we will be building Godly relationships that contribute an eternal hope when this life is completed. That is type of serving Jesus is declared as doing.
WATT,
You make me sad when you state government is the Major theme of the Bible. The Major theme is that God saved man by giving His glorious Son.
jim said...
WATT,
You make me sad when you state government is the Major theme of the Bible. The Major theme is that God saved man by giving His glorious Son.
January 25, 2020 at 7:58 PM
Jim,
How sad would you be if you were one of eleven who was with Jesus for FORTY DAYS after HIS passion speaking of ....................... THE THINGS PERTAINING TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD?
The governmental focus of any Christian should be following Jesus Christ. He alone is our High Priest, our Mediator, our Chief Shepherd, our Law Giver, and He is our Judge. Hebrews 4:14-16;1 Timothy 2:5; 1Peter 5:4; Isaiah 33:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; etc.He is also the head of the body of believers. Colossians 1:18 Any human being who claims any authority apart from that is subject to scrutiny.
While God did place gifts of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, etc., within the body, the purpose of these gifts is to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, so that we all reach unity in the faith, and knowledge of the Son of God... Ephesians 4:11-12 The Greek word for equip here is katartismos meaning equipping or preparing, or to bring into a condition of fitness, etc. But fit for what, or to do what? The next phrase answers the question... for the works of ministry. So in essence, these gifted people, whomever they may be are to enable and prepare the rest of the saints for works of ministry or service, to build up the body of Christ. The word translated as ministry here is diakonias, meaning ministry or service. Diakonias comes from the word diakonia which means ministry or active service done with a willing or voluntary attitude. The origin of these words comes from the word diakonos which is rendered depending on the passage as servant, minister, and in a few cases has been transliterated as deacon.
I have heard this passage of scripture completely butchered by most titled ministers, and used as their justification for their own elevated office of "minister", when the Greek actually implies the opposite. The idea here is that all the saints are to be made fit for ministry or works of service to build the body up and mature it into it's head, which is Christ. Verse 16 states "From Him the whole body is fitted and held together by every supporting ligament. And as each individual does it's work, the body grows and builds itself up in love." The goal here is ultimately for everyone to learn to function within the body and to reflect the head which is Christ. This is done by each individual doing his or her own part using the gifts God has given them, with the encouragement and help of those who are gifted as apostles, prophets, etc. In other words these gifts are to be functions of support and service to enable the rest of the body to learn to function properly. To view the responsibilities of apostle, prophet,pastor(shepherd) etc. strictly as ranked offices of "ministry" who exercise authority over the rest of the body while those who make up that body passively "support" said "ministry" misses the point of the entire passage and directly violates the passage in Matthew 20:25-28, among other scriptures. The chapters of 1Corinthians 12 and 13 further explains the idea Paul was trying to get across. The goal is for all to function using the gifts God has given them within the body, while building up and helping others to do the same, with the overall guiding principle of love being exercised by all. A single "minister" or servant, even if gifted as an apostle, prophet, etc. only makes up one part of the body. He is not the head, because Jesus is the head. He does not control who manifests any particular gift, nor is he responsible for giving out said gifts. That is the job of the head, Jesus. If he tries to diminish or control the use of others gifts outside of Biblical guidelines, he is acting in direct defiance to the head, who controls the use of the gifts He gives to others. 1Peter 4:8-11 and Romans 12:3-10 further clarifies these ideas. Gifts are given to all to be used by all for the benefit of the entire body. We all minister or serve one another through these gifts.
Concerned Sister
Watt,
I don't think that "the things pertaining to" the Kingdom of God means speaking of government structure. For one thing, Christ is King and High Priest dwelling also within us. That is about as flat a government structure as one can find. When He was with His disciples He would say at times the Kingdom is come upon you. But what did that mean and entail? Christ alone brought the Kingdom to His disciples. The things pertaining to the Kingdom of God apparently were not rules of government as the 11 there did not spend time writing about that, but rather they wrote about Christ and the salvation through Him, they wrote about how we interact with others, etc. Scarce little about government.
Jim,
After one of the greatest events in human history, the disciples were naturally going to go and tell what they eye witnessed because that is the heart of and means of how the Kingdom could take place. But to say the "The things pertaining to the Kingdom of God apparently were not rules of government as the 11 there did not spend time writing about that" is being blind to what is written. Paul not to far into Acts spent 3 months in a house talking about the the things concerning the Kingdom. He also laid out the rules for the membership. They include: No fornication, no idolatry, no adultery, non effeminate, no abusing, can't be a thief, can't be covetous, no drunkards, no revilers, no extortioners, must be worthy, are called unto, must have grace, must have godly fear, be rich in fruits.
The rules established by Jesus Christ concerning entrance into the Kingdom are: Must be poor in spirit, persecuted for righteousness, can't break or teach anyone to break the least of the commandments, must be righteous, must doeth the will of the Father, must understand the word of the Kingdom, must beareth fruit, can't offend, can't do iniquity, must be converted, must be as a little child, can't be physically rich, must be born again.
I would say that is enough of a list of rules for most to think about concerning the government of God. I don't need to detail the governmental church structure because it is plain and the men interacted within the confines of that structure.
Not to drag this out to minute degree for the point I was trying to make is that government and a structure of government involving God and his people is profoundly evident all through the bible. The dynamic of what is possible in the future for all of the corpses that lay in the ground knowing nothing about a possible righteous Kingdom to come and their chance to be in it makes me happy. I have no great elation in what the Kingdom has done for me or you in this present time. What I tried to point out was that a dig in your heels anti government mindset for a Christian is a dangerous path to walk. At some point in time a belief of "I will not have that man reign over me" will be a very wrong decision for many who have blinded themselves just as the devil did, that their righteousness exceeded the very one who gives righteousness.
Watt,
The things pertaining to the Kingdom are life more abundant in Christ. As Concerned Sister said any government focus should simply be following Christ. All the things you listed buttressed my point that the things pertaining to the Kingdom are not government structure.
I am immensely thankful for what the Lord's Kingdom gives today. It saves and gives life today.
It is unfortunate how HWA messed with our thinking on the Kingdom of God. You are comparing Satan's desire to be in the place of God with your own made up scenario ("I will not have that man reign over me") not unlike the misunderstanding of the apostles when they asked who will be greatest in the Kingdom.
Christ said "He that is greatest will be your servant." Do you see how fully different this is to your concept of the Kingdom where someone needs to ready himself today to be under the authority of a man so that he will not rebel against God? Do you not see that a Kingdom of serving is an anedote against the hierarchical thinking you are picturing?
Jim the dots are all there, you just have to connect them. What I have written is all recorded in the bible for an example and for our understanding.
The Kingdom of God will be a hierarchical form of government with Christ, David, the apostles and elders and captains of 100's and 50's and so on. It works Jim because "most" of these men will be godly and function as a role model and servant.
My concept of the Kingdom is exactly to what Jesus Christ spoke of. When he was in the present he said the Kingdom has suffered violence and the violent take it by force. In the parable of the tares Jesus Christ spoke to exactly what was going to happen in the kingdom of the future concerning tares (enemies). You know the verse about him reigning until all his enemies will be be put under his feet.
I already wrote of when God decided to "save" a nation out of Egypt to give unto them a kingdom and it suffered from armies without and insurrection from within with the recorded scripture of the people not wanting Moses to reign over them.
Jesus Christ was killed because of accusation of insurrection against the Roman government. It is recorded that the Jews of that time would not have that man reign over them.
So Jim, am I really taking some fanciful gigantic leap and conjuring up a concept knowing what is going to happen in the Kingdom by saying the mentality of "we will not have that man reign over us" won't be the prevailing thought of the enemies (tares)?
I have been in the COGs for many years and know at minimum 75% of the membership need some type of structure to survive. Look at the horrific problems of the Corinthian Church whom Paul had to admonish. Then there are the recorded problems of the churches in Revelation all begging for a leadership working with and in truth. Now look at what is going on today. I have been face to face with multiple ministers who could care less that actual forcible idol worship was taking place because get this - "that is official doctrine" is the only answer they can proffer. Pretty scary to think about but that is a really sad reality.
So yes, people need to be under the authority of a (GODLY) man so that they will not knowingly or unknowingly rebel against God. So yes my hierarchical thinking is an antidote against those that seek to take the kingdom from those that want to serve and to take it from them by "force".
"So yes, people need to be under the authority of a (GODLY) man so that they will not knowingly or unknowingly rebel against God. So yes my hierarchical thinking is an antidote against those that seek to take the kingdom from those that want to serve and to take it from them by "force"."
Since there's no such thing as a Godly man your position is bullshit!
6:24 PM says "Since there's no such thing as a Godly man your position is bullshit"!
The bible does mention godly men, Psalm 32:6 being one scripture denoting that aspect specifically.
7:23pm Context my friend context.
Mat 19:17 - And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Unless of course you think it possible to not be good yet still Godly.
7:23pm You might want to look up the Hebrew word translated godly there fella it merely means to be kind and merciful. By that definition an atheist can be a godly man. Hmmm.
If only God is good, the definition of good must be perfection.
Wow 6:24 PM, 3:16 AM, 4:50 AM., I put forth one scripture from the psalms and get these kind of replies?
I want to know what church all of you are attending so that I stay far away from it. For I know the holy kiss greeting will be non existent in your congregations.
Of course it is possible to be not good and holy at the same time. Does this need to be explained?
A little bible study:
Eph 2:21 (Church) groweth unto an holy temple
Eph 4:30 grieve not the Holy Spirit (which is where)?
Eph 5:27 That he might present it (Church) holy
Col 1:22 Present you holy
Col 3:12 holy and beloved
1 Thess 5:27 holy brethren
Hebrew 3:1 holy brethren
1 Pet 1:15 be ye holy
1 Pet 2:9 holy nation
2 Pet 1:21 but holy men of God
2 Pet 3:2 holy prophets
Rev. 22:11 let them that are holy
Shall we move on to the word perfect or are you three too busy playing in the barnyard or weighing possibilities or doing the two step with context instead of reading your bibles?
Watt,
I have to stop when you state something like this:
"The Kingdom of God will be a hierarchical form of government with Christ, David, the apostles and elders and captains of 100's and 50's and so on. It works Jim because "most" of these men will be godly and function as a role model and servant.
My concept of the Kingdom is exactly to what Jesus Christ spoke of."
You say your concept is EXACTLY what Christ spoke of??? He never says this and let alone would your concept be exactly as Christ meant even if He had said this.
By the way, When I speak of the Kingdom of God, I am generally not focusing on the millenium.
I can remember ministers speculating on who will have what positions in the Kingdom at various times during the FoT, using David and the apostles to fill in slots and then speculating on which other slots might be filled by whom.
The idea that David would rule over a Millennial Israel is taken from passages such as Ezekiel 37:24; Jeremiah 30:9; and others. Some believe these passages literally refer to a resurrected King David, while others say these passages actually refer to Jesus Christ, the descendant of David and rightful heir to the throne. The idea that the apostles would sit on twelve thrones is taken from Matthew 19:28, as well as a couple of other passages. Matthew 19:27-30 as well as Matthew 20:1-16, however give further context to what Jesus was trying to get across to the disciples. Paraphrasing what Peter asked Jesus, he wanted to know what was in it for them, since they gave up everything to follow Him. Jesus reply was to tell him they would sit on twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel, but then he went on to also say that everyone who has given up family,or property, etc. to follow Him would receive a hundred fold and inherit eternal life, with many who are first coming last and the last coming first. He then launched into a parable about workers called to a field, some earlier in the day, and some even as late as the eleventh hour. At the end of the day, all received the same pay. Jesus was making the point that those who worked longer agreed to a certain payment, and if the landowner wished to be as generous with others who came later in the day, it was his prerogative. Matthew 20:16 states "So the last will be first, and the first will be last." The whole point of this exchange was that we follow Christ, and He alone determines what our payment is, and all receive the same payment of eternal life. There is no doubt that the original apostles will receive places of honor at Christ's Millennial table, and in His Millennial city. It says as much in Luke 22:30, and Revelation 21:14.
It also says though that many from the east and the west would sit with Abraham at the banquet of the Kingdom. Jesus was speaking specifically of Gentiles here. Matthew 8:11-12; Luke 13:28-30 It also says that those who overcome will be pillars in His temple, rule over nations, and sit with Him on His throne. Revelation 2:26; Revelation 3:12; and Revelation 3:21 In other words, all will receive a reward directly from Jesus Christ, and those who sit on thrones, rule nations, or become pillars will do so at His pleasure and under His authority. He made it clear who is in charge, both now and in the Kingdom. To simply reduce these things to rank and position misses the point. "He who is last shall be first, and he who is first shall be last". If you want to be great, be a servant. If you want to be first, be a slave. Matthew 20:26-27
Concerned Sister
"Of course it is possible to be not good and holy at the same time. Does this need to be explained?"
Who the hell said anything about being holy? The debate has been about being godly/good. Holy merely means set apart. Of course one can be set apart and not be good/godly.
I'm amazed how some people reason, or perhaps I should say don't reason. You can't argue one point and then change the topic completely. Go back, where was holy ever mentioned.
jim said...
Watt,
I have to stop when you state something like this:
"The Kingdom of God will be a hierarchical form of government with Christ, David, the apostles and elders and captains of 100's and 50's and so on. It works Jim because "most" of these men will be godly and function as a role model and servant.
My concept of the Kingdom is exactly to what Jesus Christ spoke of."
You say your concept is EXACTLY what Christ spoke of??? He never says this and let alone would your concept be exactly as Christ meant even if He had said this.
Jim, I could give you the exact scriptures where Jesus Christ says all of it, but since you want me to stop, I will stop.
I was thinking back today what you had written earlier concerning the messed up minds that have happened in the COG land. My written concern earlier was for those that are so vehemently anti government that they predispose themselves to aligning themselves with the enemies of God. A secondary concern which I was thinking about today is building the Kingdom in our own "likeness". The COG leaders have for many years built their own little kingdoms so that they can promote it and themselves to the whole world and it is self evident exactly what they are all about. But the secondary major concern is what each individual is doing with there own kingdom. Many have as Mr. Diehl has pointed out in the past built a lot of walls. Walls block flow. Walls restrict movement. Walls suffocate. Jerusalem is spoken of as being a unwalled village in the future for mankind. That might be the aspiration for myself and many others right now before that day even comes.
I am heading to the hardware store right now Jim, they have a sale on sledgehammers.
Post a Comment