why have we been failing for almost 1700 years?

Neil,

You made a lot of interesting points, most of which I agree. (The one I disagree with is in the calling of a man a 'pastor'. These terms are gleaned from Paul's writings to Timothy.)

In any case, revival begins with me. I cannot impose it on another, much as I would like to. God has called us to faithfulness and obedience. Difficulties arise when we work to discredit the WORD and its meanings.

2 Timothy 1 shares interesting insights into the mindsets that work to subvert the Gospel. (I have the wonderful privilege to teach this lesson tomorrow to the adult sisters at church! Oh, and we do have a name....:-) )

Blessings

The call of the gospel is still
compelling. His grace is iresistable,
His love is undeniable, His promises
are timeless and true. If the Church
has lost its relevance for today; it
is because it has forgotten its place
and purpose--it serves as the Body
of Christ!!
The Church is to be full of peculiar
people; people with a hunger for the
truth, people who thirst for more of
GOD'S presence and power, people who
love righteousness more than life,
people with a zeal for good works!!
May GOD fill HIS Church, which is HIS
BODY, with HIS peculiar people!!

I couldn't agree more Natan4. Especially about the man-made abominable "office" held by people titled with holy names like pastor, reverend, bishop, father, my lord, eminence, his holiness, or even "brother"..... you know, the Clergy. They EXPECT to be addressed in this manner by the Laity. Been there, seen that, won't do it.

To be a good "christian" today, You have to go to some phony, religious re-creation of a "temple" ruled by a "priest" "pastor", pay your "tithes" on a "sabbath". And if you refuse to participate in this modern version of the ancient Hebrew theocracy, well, you may as well be the devil himself. You will certainly chew your tongue for eternity in the very Fires of Hell. To even present such an idea, that the church is a miserable, ineffective failure, is to brand yourself a rebel, a heretic, a dog.... yes you are demon-possessed. The keepers of the phony temple (the pastors) will make sure that you are identified as such to prevent any sheep from being fouled with your blasphemous message. With the anointing of God heavy upon them, they will escort you to the faggots for burning as the sheep watch in holy terror.

There are hearts stirring with such sentiment even now as they read your thread. Minds already churning with rebuttals...looking for your errors. "Yes Natan4, some of what you say is almost right, but.." The defender of God's "church" is righteously indignant. "Something WRONG? How dare you! God can do no wrong and WE, the church, are God's handiwork. Why, we follow the Holy Bible, you know, the REAL version of it!"

Yes, the "church" idea that is presented to us as if it were the holy, scripturally-based, body into which we MUST be baptized or be doomed, is a gigantic failure and a hoax. Everything that adam's children have ever done has failed. The "church" has failed and will continue to fail.

But, this won't affect the Called-Out Body for Whom the God Savior died. This Body will do exactly as planned. Most of the "church" won't ever know it.

As to the question: No, we (assuming your meant those who call themselves christians) are not of one accord. I think that's been pretty plain for at least 1,700 years. And it will NOT get any better in this age, small smatterings of "revival" notwithstanding. But there's another age coming.

God bless you Natan4 and strengthen you and preserve you from the adversary.

I agree with ginnyrose that the office of "Pastor" is scriptural; however, I do share the discontent that Natan4 and StevenL have concerning the current leadership situation in The Church. I am from a Classic Pentecostal background and I was in the Pentecostal Church before anyone ever heard of "prosperity" preaching. From the very beginning of the Pentecostal movement, Pentecostal preachers preached against worldliness and for being eternity-minded. I have had the misfortune to watch our churches be invaded by a new breed of preachers who are preaching a God-wants-you-to-have-it-all-NOW message. Along with that message, there is another teaching that is neccesary for them to teach in order to succeed in taking over and that is the "authority of the pastor." If you do not want to be exposed then you must teach that anyone who exposes you is in rebellion, and that is exactly what they are doing! We are in sad times in the Body of Christ. I believe we are gearing up for Revelation 17.

Watchman Nee has some excelent writtings on these same points in a book titled, "God´s Plan and the Overcomers". He, in a terse and biblical way, outlines God´s plan in the failures of the church and God´s plan for the overcomers in these last days.

The book might not answer all the questions, but what we can glean from this brother will most likely help us.

All interesting points. But do not be discouraged! He said -HE- will build -HIS- Church. There are great things going on all over. God's arm is not short brethren! This is actually the "rock" Jesus was speaking of. That He is going to build His Church through speaking to people.

At the risk of sounding like one of those people who with one fell swoop totally ignore the points supporting your thesis and just give an all-encompassing, other-side-of-the-coin answer, I humbly submit to you dear brother Neil:

1. Compare the Church with Old Testament Israel. While a substantially large group of people were Israelites, not all of those people were God's chosen people.

Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.

I believe the same to be true of the church. Not all who are of the church are God's people. If you let your mind entertain such a train of thought and see this shawdow/typology through to its logical conclusion, it can be seen that God was always greatly working in His people, even though the people at-large that claimed His name looked nothing like what they should have, had they truly been His.

2. It is also important to define what a winning church looks like. What does it look like when the church is succeeding or prospering? Do we have our own conception (glmamorized by high preaching and high points in history suchs as revivals) or a thoroughly grounded and biblical one?

3. I believe it is important, somewhat in regards to the last point and overall in general, to respect the unique distinctness of the original church. The first century, apostolic, church of Acts is the foundation for which we are built upon. They did certain things that have to be regarded as special: were literal witnesses to risen Lord Jesus, wrote scripture, walked in consistently miracle-performing lifestyles, faced extreme opposition daily, lived communally, preached a new message to a completely virgin world. They did all this and more in one context. Some of these things can't be re-done. Others do still happen. They had the time in history that was pregnant with them all: a sort of divine-orchestrated, anthropic greenhouse created specifically to birth a church foundation for all coming generations.

That crudely said, forgive my ignorance, I also believe that church put up with a lot of garbage just like today. The Church of Corinth? A bunch of charismaniac sin bags Paul had to continually preach the simple gospel message to. The Galatians? Spirit-quenching, borderline legallists. The Hebrews of Jerusalem? Salvation-negelecting, unbelieving, unmatured, back-turning, almost God-refusing people. Or how bout discrimination in Acts 6? And on top of that, all of them had false teachers sneaking in; all of them had people divided over doctrine; all of them had little sects of "I am of Apollos" or "I am of Paul." I'm probably not being fair, but the letters to these groups would seem they had deep struggles; they were largely human; and they had a few solid people trying to encourage them into the narrow way.

And that's just the New Testament era church. The following years are filled with heretical teachers and bitter, church-dividing arguments. Did Constantine do something desperatley fatal? I beleive so. I have often thought of that as a pivotal turning point in the Church, but that leads me to consider these previously mentioned points and hope in the last one:

4. Christ's promises:

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Eph 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Christ will have and does have His Church. The true Church of Christ has always had expression throughout history. Without preaching a remnant theology, I will say that expression of God's true people, from Genesis to Jude, always seems small. Only in Revelation do we see that number of people that no man can number, once God has gathered together all of His saints throughout time.

Also, that there is a real, vital, holy, God-centered, Christ-exalting, Spirit-saturated Church is one of the reasons Jesus died..."that He might sanctify her...that He might present her in splendor." These aren't maybe's. He died so He could do this, and since that day 2000 years ago, that desired result has been accomplished and will continue to be accomplished.

6. If you are still patiently bearing with me brother, I risk breaking complete forum decency by posting a video that will most surely and wholly answer your grievances. Forgive my facetiousness, but I only exude it because I know how insensitive such a move can be. In any case, I am compelled to ask you to please consider the words of Mr. Washer in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7CGCXFp5Bs

The heart of what he is saying is critical I believe to this discussion. God is committed to having a people, unified and whole. He had that in the Old Testament; He had that in the greatly imperfect Church of Acts; and He has had that to the present. Different practices, forms, and methodoligies perhaps have been better than others, and some may appeal to each of us more personally than others. This I believe can be factored into:

1. The original first point. Tares are with the wheat and so we have unregenerates running institutions.

2. The Bible doesn't lay extensive and specific groundwork for how a church is supposed to operate in meetings. Guidelines are there in some places and over-arching themes need to be respected, but it appears as though liberty in the specifics is left to each fellowship of believers.

3. We all have personalities with likes and dislikes. We will all be drawn to certain ministry philosophies more than others. This is something we either use to motivate us to find that specific place in the universal Body to which we belong and/or God uses to cultivate unconditional love, grace, mercy, selflessness, etc within us.

I do say brother I have shared many of these sentiments and have recently stumbled upon a B.B. Warfield article in which he unrepentantly puts the blame solely upon the person in our position. Please do read his words, while not all may be directly applicable to your heart right now, I believe there is wise counsel here for you. I humbly submit his words at-large to you in closing:

I wish to be perfectly explicit here, and very emphatic. No
man can withdraw himself from the stated religious services of the community of which he is a member, without serious injury to his personal religious life. It is not without significance that the apostolic writer couples together the exhortations, "to hold fast the confession of
our hope, that it waver not," and "to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together." When he commands us not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves together," he has in mind, as the term he employs shows, the stated, formal assemblages of the community, and means to lay upon the hearts and consciences of his readers their duty
to the church of which they are the supports, as well as their duty to themselves. And when he adds, "As the custom of some is," he means to put a lash into his command. We can see his lip curl as he says it. Who are these people, who are so vastly strong, so supremely holy, that they do not need the assistance of the common worship for
themselves; and who, being so strong and holy, will not give their assistance to the common worship?

Needful as common worship is, however, for men at large, the need of it for men at large is as nothing compared with its needfulness for a body of young men situated as you are. You are gathered together here for a religious purpose, in preparation for the highest religious service which can be performed by men—the guidance of others in the religious life; and shall you have everything else in
common except worship? You are gathered together here, separated from your homes and all that home means; from the churches in which you have been brought up, and all that church fellowship means; from all the powerful natural influences of social religion—and shall you
not yourselves form a religious community, with its own organic religious life and religious expression? I say it deliberately, that a body of young men, living apart in a community-life, as you are and must be living, cannot maintain a healthy, full, rich religious life individually, unless they are giving organic expression to their religious life as a community in frequent stated diets of common worship. Nothing can take the place of this common organic worship of the community as a community, at its stated seasons, and as a regular function of the corporate life of the community. Without it
you cease to be a religious community and lack that support and stay, that incitement and spur, that comes to the individual from the organic life of the community of which he forms a part.

In my own mind, I am quite clear that in an institution like this the whole body of students should come together, both morning and evening, every day, for common prayer; and should join twice on every Sabbath in formal worship. Without at least this much common worship I do not think the institution can preserve its character as a
distinctively religious institution—an institution whose institutional life is primarily a religious one. And I do not think that the individual students gathered here can, with less full expression of the organic religious life of the institution, preserve the high level of religious life
on which, as students of theology they ought to live. You will observe that I am not merely exhorting you "to go to church." "Going to church" is in any case good. But what I am exhorting you to do is go to your own church—to give your presence and active religious participation to every stated meeting for worship of the institution as
an institution. Thus you will do your part to give to the institution an organic religious life, and you will draw out from the organic religious life of the institution a support and inspiration for your own personal religious life which you can get nowhere else, and which you can
cannot afford to miss—if, that is, you have a care to your religious quickening and growth. To be an active member of a living religious body is the condition of healthy religious functioning.

I trust you will not tell me that the stated religious exercises of the Seminary are too numerous, or are wearying. That would only be to betray the low ebb of your own religious vitality. The feet of him whose heart is warm with religious feeling turn of themselves to the
sanctuary, and carry him with joyful steps to the house of prayer. I am told that there are some students who do not find themselves in a prayerful mood in the early hours of a winter morning; and are much too tired at the close of a hard day's work to pray, and therefore do not find it profitable to attend prayers in the late afternoon: who think the preaching at the regular service on Sabbath morning dull and uninteresting, and who do not find Christ at the Sabbath afternoon conference. Such things I seem to have heard before; and yours will be an exceptional pastorate, if you do not hear something very like them,
before you have been in a pastorate six months. Such things meet you every day on the street; they are the ordinary expression of the heart which is dulled or is dulling to the religious appeal. They are not hopeful symptoms among those whose life should be lived on the
religious heights. No doubt, those who minister to you in spiritual things should take them to heart. And you who are ministered to must take them to heart, too. And let me tell you straightout that the preaching you find dull will no more seem dull to you if you faithfully obey the Master's precept: "Take heed how ye hear"; that if you do not find Christ in the conference room it is because you do not take him there with you; that, if after an ordinary day's work you are too weary to unite with your fellows in closing the day with common prayer, it is because the impulse to prayer is weak in your heart. If there is no fire in the pulpit it falls to you to kindle it in the pews. No man can fail to meet with God in the sanctuary if he takes God there with him.

How easy it is to roll the blame of our cold hearts over upon the shoulders of our religious leaders! It is refreshing to observe how Luther, with his breezy good sense, dealt with complaints of lack of attractiveness in his evangelical preachers. He had not sent them out
to please people, he said, and their function was not to interest or to entertain; their function was to teach the saving truth of God, and, if they did that, it was frivolous for people in danger of perishing for want of the truth to object to the vessel in which it was offered to them. When the people of Torgau, for instance, wished to dismiss their pastors, because, they said, their voices were too weak to fill the churches, Luther simply responded, "That's an old song: better have some difficulty in hearing the gospel than no difficulty at all in hearing what is very far from the gospel." "People cannot have their ministers exactly as they wish," he declares again, "they should thank God for the pure word," and not demand St. Augustines and St. Ambroses to preach it to them. If a pastor pleases the Lord Jesus and is faithful to him,—there is none so great and mighty but he ought to be pleased with him, too. The point, you see, is that men who are hungry for the truth and get it ought not to be exigent as to the platter in which it is served to them. And they will not be.

But why should we appeal to Luther? Have we not the example of our Lord Jesus Christ? Are we better than he? Surely, if ever there was one who might justly plead that the common worship of the community had nothing to offer him it was the Lord Jesus Christ. But every Sabbath found him seated in his place among the worshipping people, and there was no act of stated worship which he felt himself entitled to discard. Even in his most exalted moods, and
after his most elevating experiences, he quietly took his place with the rest of God's people, sharing with them in the common worship of the community. Returning from that great baptismal scene, when the heavens themselves were rent to bear him witness that he was well pleasing to God; from the searching trials of the wilderness, and from
that first great tour in Galilee, prosecuted, as we are expressly told, "in the power of the Spirit"; he came back, as the record tells, "to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and"—so proceeds the amazing narrative—"he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue, on the
Sabbath day." "As his custom was!" Jesus Christ made it his habitual practice to be found in his place on the Sabbath day at the stated place of worship to which he belonged. "It is a reminder," as Sir William Robertson Nicoll well insists, "of the truth which, in our fancied
spirituality, we are apt to forget—that the holiest personal life can scarcely afford to dispense with stated forms of devotion, and that the regular public worship of the church, for all its local imperfections and dullness, is a divine provision for sustaining the individual soul." "We cannot afford to be wiser than our Lord in this matter. If any one could have pled that his spiritual experience was so lofty that it did not require public worship, if any one might have felt that the consecration
and communion of his personal life exempted him from what ordinary mortals needed, it was Jesus. But he made no such plea. Sabbath by Sabbath even he was found in the place of worship, side by side with God's people, not for the mere sake of setting a good example, but for deeper reasons. Is it reasonable, then, that any of us should think we
can safely afford to dispense with the pious custom of regular participation with the common worship of our locality?" Is it necessary for me to exhort those who would fain be like Christ, to see to it that they are imitators of him in this?

[from THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS]

hi,Jesus is the head of the church and i am His.we won already at the cross and ressurection.praise Him!jimp

brother Neil,
I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I think part of the problem is the issue of focusing on building "church buildings" as opposed to following the pattern we see in the New Testament, namely, house churches. I would encourage my brothers and sisters to consider this website and the information therein: www.ntrf.org (particularly an article entitled "Toward A House Church Theology").
I know that "house churches" per se are not the answer, as there are many "dead" ones out there right now. But I believe it would be a good step toward the answer, as it helps to foster genuine Christian community.
Along with the problem of focusing on buildings, comes the problem of the the hierachical "clergy/laity" system where the equality of every believer under the Headship of Christ and the priesthood of all believers(1Pet.2:5,9), is no longer visible. This system elevates the "clergy" above the "laity" and hinders the "laity" from operating in the gifts and callings of God upon their lives. It helps make them lukewarm "pew sitters", and it creates a "One Man Show" mentality, where the gifted pastor is seen as the star of the show(Sunday Service)for all to see and idolize and marvel at. In 1Cor.14 we see clear commands on how the church is to operate during church meetings. Most of those commands are completely ignored in today's church system, such as the command to allow participatory activity from every believer during the meetings.
A couple thoughts for the brethren who believe that the title of "Pastor" is biblical. The Bible does teach that God has given pasors/teachers to His Church for its edification, just as he gave apostles, prophets and evangelists(Eph.4:7). However, those giftings, callings, or functions are nowhere described as "titles" of superiority for Christians to wear. Nowhere in the NT do we see anything like "Pastor so and so", "Evangelist so and so", "Prophet so and so", or even "Apostle so and so". In Matt.23:8-12 Jesus clearly forbade them from placing any titles of that sort on themselves. Why? because it elevates one Christian above another. Someone says, what about the authority that is given to pastors/elders? That authortiy is given to them to protect the sheep from wolves and heresy, not to lord it over God's people(1Pet.5:3). They are His sheep, and He is their Pastor.
With regard to the Church failing, yes, but God has always had a remnant. And even today within this traditional church system there is a remnant of true believers in Christ. And I believe God is stirring up many of His remnant to long for New Testament book of Acts Christianity. I believe He is saying to His sheep, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches".
In Matthew 15:3 our Lord asked the Pharisees, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"
In general, much of the church has strayed from biblical church life for the sake of man-made traditions.
Oracio

I agree with a lot of what you said, except mainly the part about leadership. I agree that titles get abused, but they roles are biblical. I'm not going to get into an argument an that, because we share the same frustration, so let's get past the minutiae.

There is a current revival taking place in Kansas City. The power of God is evident, but not just as a Charismaniac Free-For-All. People get healed, lives get changed, and many people have found it worth the effort and pain to uproot themselves from their homes and relocate just to be where God is.

What is more overwhelming to me, besides just the evidence of the Holy Spirit, is the conviction in the Word preached. It has produced a healthy body of people, who have been trained to respond to the Word of God by changing, and allowing God to bring them closer and closer to perfection. The pastor (pardon the expression for those of you who despise the 5-fold ministry) doesn't just speak on how much God loves us despite our faults, but he brings to light fresh revelation that isn't just a regurgitation of denominational instruction.

Another fresh facet of this revival is the direction it is going. It isn't just circling around on anointing or inaugural event (as if revolving around some imminent drain to bring it to it's demise like every other move of God), but the people (not just guests or leadership) want MORE or God. They want to grow, expand and mature in what God has for them, not just enjoy "drunkeness" (a word I wince at when blurted by Charismatics).

If you are interested in seeing for yourself, look up World Revival Church, they are on YouTube, Daystar, and their own website. There really is something unique and fresh happening, and almost the entire congregation is hungry for God like most of us here. I really hope this reaches out to the people here, as it seems this is a website for people hungry for the REAL, POWERFUL, CORRECTING Father that we have.

hi, 1 million latinos are becoming born again christians every 6 weeks ... 1 million chinese every 4 weeks ... 1 hundred thousand moslems this year so far...give to missions or go to the field and see the great real revivals going on around the world from efforts and monies from us ...Jesus is in chargeof His bride.jimp

Blessings to you Neil. Your heart is something to be coveted in this hour. In humble response to your post, I submit to you:

I asked about your definition of a "winning" church only because the thread's topic is that of a failing church. If we are failing, there is the possibility we could not fail, that is, to put it crassly: win/succeed/etc. And in a way, that is almost the question behind the question or thought behind the thought. We are failing but only because we are not winning, which would look like this ______ (fill in the blank). I anticipated your response and for that I beg forgiveness for my presumption, as you didn't seem to go there.

I thought you, as many people do to show the inadequacy of the modern church, would appeal to primarily the Church of Acts and perhaps revival era churches in as secondary support to show how miserably subpar the current church is. This is why I had a point three arguing for the unique nature of the first church, as well as the disctinctly human element (the sin, the sectarianism, the heresy, the legalism, etc) that most certainly shows these people were anything but perfected divines of sainthood. Most people tend to hagiograpghy when they recount the early church, and then they compare their elevated view of it to the worst of the worst in today's church so the difference is emphasized. So without denying the awesome nature of that first church, I wanted to also convey it, that were it not for God's divine purpose of establishing them as the foundation of His church universal, they would not appear so different from us today.

I would cautiously say the same for revival era churches. I have heard many cliches from various revival preachers that revival should be the norm for the church. To that I say a resounding no. If that was the norm, then it would be the norm. Those times are also uniquities in the history of the church that should be treasured for what they are and realized for what they aren't (to the former, the bar of measure; to the latter, above reproach, for we are prone to ignore their faults and exalt their high marks).

And so without digressing further from our subject... You concurred with that premise, at least in regard to the early church, but then you immediately concluded that that reasonable proposition (the early church was unique in nature) has brought us to "roman-lite." Can you please explain how this is so? Why their being unique defaults us to roman-lite? Or if it is a necessary result, how then that is not God's plan, for what other way could we have?

As far as the global state of things, I couldn't agree more that persecution and chaos could be the necessary ingredients to invoke some sort of awakening-type atmosphere, whether for professing Christians to get serious and/or unbelievers to come unto Christ.

You said and asked: '"the "Rock" of Peter, as i read it, was THE CONFESSION, this FIRST Confession, "You are the Son of God", is what the Body of Christ is built on....can we agree on that?'

Absolutely. We are agreed. You went on to mention Hernhutt to which I would also agree was an expression of the true Church of Christ. But I would also say that there's a thousand other Hernhutt like peoples, albeit on much smaller scales(perhaps even on an individual person scale) that history has not recorded. To go back to the Old Testament Israel/Church typology, a Hernhutt would be like an Elijah. A definite, historical phenomenon. But we cannot forgot that God had 7,000 other men who were completely His as well, but we get no mention of their names, and this was in a most apostate Israel under the most aggregious and idolatrous king. Yet they were there, and so it is throughout history. There is always a definite group in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation and largle apostate professing church.

Now you did say this: "i feel i would be scaling the heights of arrogance if i was ever to breath the attribute "true" in relation to my walk, or to a congregation i belonged to as being the "true". Implication being, others are false, and the way i see it, thats in God's Jurisdiction, mindful of the words of Gamaliel in Acts..."

With respect to the Gamaliel passage, I do not think it is out of the realm of safe exgesis to say that the Bible certainly encourages a believer to test his or her faith against criteria it lays out, and so while humility and brokenness should be our aim, let us not also treat as common what the Father has sanctified as holy by the blood of His Son. If you are His, there is no shame in admitting and even rejoicing in that revelation, for it is His merit and work that saved you. He purchased you with His blood, knowing that He would not see you perfected til heaven (or second coming or....well this isn't an eschatalogical or glorification discussion, so whenever that may be), and yet He wanted you nonetheless. Jesus saves the unrighteous and sick, not the self-righteous and those in no need of a physician.

Perhaps, it is in retrospect that one can more safely judge fruit biblically, at least in grayer areas. I'm sure neither of us would have trouble declaring Mormonsism or Jehovahs' Witnesses or Muslims as thoroughly false. And this is because, yes there is a false. There is a true. Jesus said He was the true vine; there is a false one (the vine of the earth Rev. 14:18-19). So I wholly endorse a humility and modesty and caution when it comes to making claims to true and false churches, but let us not attempt to live above the scriptures which endorse distinguishing between true religion and false, for the sake of salvific purposes. We are continually exhorted to not to follow false preaching and teaching, not to decieve ourselves with our religious pretenses, and to hunger, thirst, and seek after righteousness and truth. Somewhere in that lines must be drawn.

Now I'm not trying to hammer out specifics here, as far as doctrinal and praxy differences within the realm of biblical, historical Christianity. I am merely saying that where the Spririt of the Lord is there is freedom and life and light and you cannot hide that.

I feel I'm digressing now.

I appreciate you listening to the Washer message and was in no way asking you to endorse all he stands for by acknowledging what he is presenting in that snippet. All I was asking is for you to hear the message delivered; it could have been anyone giving that word. I know Mr. Washer has a sort of iconic status, to where many hold him as infallible. I do not. I merely appreciate his high view of the Bride of Christ and the work of Christ to secure and preserve her. And I think that is what you saw. There is tares with the wheat, that shouldn't make the wheat any less wheat though, right?

All I am arguing for is that Christ's Bride is whole and she is glorious because He has redeemed and regenerated her and is committed to completing that work. That does happen within the context of a sinful world and a messy church sub-culture, as evidenced by the original church. The point of all of that dear brother was to encourage you to not lose heart. Your heart is tender, your spirit poor, your soul perhaps even mournful. The Bible calls you blessed my friend.

As for that Bonhoeffer work I haven't read it, but will put it on my list. Bonhoeffer is one I would love to dive into though. I have truthfully only got through maybe a third of The Cost of Discipleship and have not even cracked that copy of Ethics I got for Christmas a few years back. Also, just ordered the bio on him that was recently published. O Lord save me from being merely a book collector...let me be a reader!

You closed with this, "i guess thats what i long for, life together with other followers of Jesus...."communal"? to an extent, meaning nothing is "mandated". "cultish"? God forbid."

Perhaps you could expound this more? This might be the heart of why you see failure everywhere. You are longing and searching for this, but can't seem to find it.

"i've been crafting what i call the "Order of Service" as the Lord leads....it would be a worship service, more like "worship sharing", where all congregants can share with each other, heart testimony, share burdens, share Scripture, share tears, share victory, with Jesus as The Pastor."

This sounds a little like what trendy church engineers would call a small group setting. I say that only to encourage you that life is out there. People are yearning for this; it's just that broken, human people are engaging them. Please let us not live reactionary lifestyles that throw the baby out with the bathwater because mainstreamers water-down and secularize legitmate biblical concepts.

EDIT: Grammar, clarity.

Dear Brother Oracio,

I saw this comment you wrote:

"A couple thoughts for the brethren who believe that the title of "Pastor" is biblical. The Bible does teach that God has given pasors/teachers to His Church for its edification, just as he gave apostles, prophets and evangelists(Eph.4:7). However, those giftings, callings, or functions are nowhere described as "titles" of superiority for Christians to wear. Nowhere in the NT do we see anything like "Pastor so and so", "Evangelist so and so", "Prophet so and so", or even "Apostle so and so".

I was compelled to encourage you to re-read the introduction verses of the epistles. You will find Paul and Peter consistently appealing to their apostleship as their authority to be writing instruction to their respective audiences (which includes us too). Paul specifically and constantly defended his authority as an apostle as well: 1 Cor. 4, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 11-12. As for the authority that comes with this apostleship, Peter writes 2 Pet. 3:2. And Paul describes it in 2 Cor. 10 and 13.

I only mention this for your personal edification and that you may rightly divide the word of truth. I understand the abuse of these office titles that is prevelant today. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater though because certain people are abusing a biblical concept. Closely tied with Paul's apostleship was a role as spiritual father and mentor. He used the spiritual weight rightly his given by the Lord in a way that Jesus used His: as a servant-leader, not a tyrant/king/etc.

Edit: Grammar

I tried to put up a video, but for some reason it didn't work. How do I put them on this site? Anyways, here's the link to a recent testimony reel from World Revival Church of Kansas City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND80STabP8g

Dear brother Paul,
You wrote,

I was compelled to encourage you to re-read the introduction verses of the epistles. You will find Paul and Peter consistently appealing to their apostleship as their authority to be writing instruction to their respective audiences (which includes us too). Paul specifically and constantly defended his authority as an apostle as well: 1 Cor. 4, 1 Cor. 9, 2 Cor. 11-12. As for the authority that comes with this apostleship, Peter writes 2 Pet. 3:2. And Paul describes it in 2 Cor. 10 and 13.

Thank you for your reply. In Paul's introduction to his epistles we see statements such as "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" and "Paul, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ". The same thing goes for Peter's epistles. But that is much different than giving themselves a "title" name. You will never find anywhere in the NT statements like "Apostle Paul" or "Apostle Peter". They simply state what function, gifting, or calling they operate in within Christ's Church. It's like me saying, "Oracio, an evangelist of Jesus Christ" instead of "Evangelist Oracio". Believe it or not their is a huge difference. A difference on which abuse of one's functional gifting hinges.
I understand that the first century apostles had a special authority over all the churches in the early church. They were clothed with divine authority as the founders of the Church of Jesus Christ and writers of the New Testament Scriptures. We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets(the NT and OT Scriptures), Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone(Eph.2:20). There is no question about that. But not even they took upon themselves a prestigious title, because the Lord had warned them not to do so(how else do you interpret Matt.23:6-12?). If the apostles themselves were careful not to place titles on themselves, how much more careful should pastors/elders be? They do not have the same level of authority that the first apostles did. The current main stream church system sets them up on a pedestal that is forbidden biblically. Case in point: in the early church there was no such thing as an elevated pulpit in a church with chairs(thrones) behind it. They met in homes of believers and shared their spiritual gifts with one another mutually. There was much participation among the brethren. There was much stirring one another up to zeal and good works for the Lord. The pastors/elders were there to set things in order so that there would not be heresy allowed, and also to teach the Word of God. But they were not the only ones who were allowed to teach, because they were not the only ones who had gifts of teaching.
Was there teaching/preaching to larger crowds than would fit in a house church? Of course, but not in the regular church meetings, because they were not to be a one man show. Someone says, "what about the huge churches we read about like the church in the city of Ephesus? Surely they were too big to fit in a house". I say yes, but the churches in each city were made up of networks of small house churches. In other words, they were broken up into house churches, making each church like a closely knit family.
My main point is that in the early church the pastors/elders did not lord over the church meetings as we see today. And of course they were not perfect, but they excelled in many things of which we lack today. My hope and prayer is that we get back to the basics as much as possible, that's all. From what I've heard and read, the underground house churches in China resemble the early church in many things. Maybe it will come down to persecution being an instrument to get us back to that resemblance. Blessings to you as you seek the Lord.
Oracio