Is merely external religion what God requires from His people? Does such religion please Him? It appears not! While true religion has outward form, it is much more than that. In OT times, there was plenty of religion, numerous sacrifices and other goings on; but God did not want that either! In fact it was all no good. Indeed, much of their 'true' words were in fact lying words (Jer.7:4). These priests were able to use the truth to spread lies! And the false prophets were on board reinforcing what the ritualistic priests did! There was a holistic approach to the spread of false religion.
Could you even have imagined that this would happen amongst the chosen and called people of God? Yet it did happen. And it has happened again in our day. Priests masquerading as presbyters are doing exactly the same - using words of truth to spread lies and thus to deceive the people who listen to them. Can you believe it!
They had passed on this erroneous idea that so long as they had the church building in their midst and they attended it occasionally, they would be OK. But God confounded them and told them that He did not care about the church building now that they had departed from His revealed truth. They had left their moorings, therefore they had nothing to hold on to. They were no longer safe from the wrath of Almighty God. Fall it would, and without mercy.
The church today is under divine judgement, yet it does not know it. She is blistering under God's wrath, but does not perceive it. Her explanation is altogether different from the divine perspective and analysis. She is living in cloud-cookoo-land. Her hearers are on their way to a lost eternity, but the church is still telling them they are alright. How terrible! What unfaithfulness, not only to God but to the souls that are under their charge!
What it is going to take to awaken the church from her heavy slumbers, I do not know. But awakened she must be, ere it is too late!
3 comments:
Once again, I agree with the spirit and much of the content of this comment, but it fails to get to the essence of one of the church's central problem today, namely its institutionalism .
You say:
"The church today is under divine judgement, yet it does not know it".
Indeed that is sadly so, but perhaps formulating the question "Does God want what we offer in worship?" is part of the key to the answer.
Leaving aside for a moment the evident truth that those who preach and teach modernism, liberalism, and "another Gospel" in any shape or form forfeit God's blessing in their churches or ministry, I believe the "worship" element needs to be re-examined.
Take the question raised? Perhaps God does NOT want much of what we offer in "worship". I say this because I believe we have substituted the "worship service" for the NT pattern, imposed it as an undeviating 'norm' and institutionalised it to the point that it defies NT definition as to WHY we gather as Christians.
The so called 'worship service is an innovation AWAY from the NT norm where it is imposed as the sole expression for the Christian gathering. For over 500 years the worship service has only altered minimally, (irrespective of denomination or religious label).
They are officiated and directed by 'clergymen' (or now some women) whose justification for 'official ministry' is that of the "call" concept and then ordination.
The unscriptural "sermon" concept is also imposed, is central, and directly excludes any possibility of the brethren and sisters to contribute to the edification of the church gathered. They are merely passive pew warmers.
The services themselves are invariably stereotyped, with minor variations, pre-set, perfunctory and regulated - in effect a universal liturgy in which the headship of Christ through the Spirit's working is, for all practical purposes excluded.
By sharp contrast the NT does not encourage a uniform and imposed "worship service", though an occasional one is certainly permitted.
The criteria for the congregational gathering is primarily:
1 For Christ Himself to be actually expressed through "every member" present, not just one, the 'pastor'. (Eph. 4:16 - part of Pauls' extended argument through the whole chapter) i.e. "That which EVERY joint supplies etc.
2. The aim of mutual edification. The present "worship service" the structure simply does not allow for this to take place. The worship service is therefore, in effect, a closed system which of necessity excludes the vital place of spiritual gifts being evident and exercised.
Note how many times Paul emphasises the essential ingredient of mutual edification in in 1 Cor. 14 !
"Worship", as we know, is all of life, not a "religious" activitiy switched on at a certain point on a Sunday morning. So, yes, if we have departed so far from NT norms it may well be that God has little regard for our stereotyped worship services.
The perceptive comment by Howard Snyder in this context needs to be heeded I suggest:
"The New Testament assumes certain preconditions, and where these preconditions are lacking, NT results will not follow. Paul's teaching about the gifts of the Spirit assume a NT view of the church" ('Liberating the Church')
Much more could be said but it may be that others may throw further light on the subject?
A CRITIQUE OF GRAHAM WOOD
1. Today's custom of making the sermon the centre-piece of a weekly gathering for Christian is basically flawed. There is no NT support for this, and neither was it the norm for the church for the fist two centuries.
Reply: Whether preaching is regarded as the 'centre piece' or an 'off-centre piece' in worship, you tilt at a man of straw in forgetting that, in the best Reformed evangelical traditions, catechising and personal counselling have coexisted with conversational fellowship and discussion as teaching methods. So why can you not accept 'the sermon' as one method if the rest of us embrace the others? You are grossly dogmatic to insist that 'Sunday sermons' are 'basically flawed' whereas David Norrington is far more tentative in admitting the possibility of a 'formal discourse' (PNTP, 9-11). You labour under a questionable prejudice against 'preaching' which, under the blessing of God, has wrought wonders of grace in hearts and lives for centuries! You have become an enemy of the Holy Spirit's activity!
2.The regular sermon event became a regular feature in Christian gatherings by the 3rd century, along with other non biblical practices - elaborate buildings, a hierarchical leadership pattern (clergy), which in turn prevented the practice of mutual ministries amongst believers, and the exercise of the priesthood of ALL believers.
Reply: To place a faithful biblical sermon (other types sadly have existed, I agree) in the same category as elaborate buildings and clerical hierarchies is simply perverse. A truly Reformed ministry retains preaching while rejecting the rest. The priesthood of all believers (which has to do with direct access to God in Christ rather than public ministry) does not invalidate a settled teaching eldership (as clearly taught in Paul's pastoral epistles).
3.I Cor. 12-14, Eph. 4 with its pictures of the organic nature and functioning of the church, develop the theme that the primary task of edifying the church is not a monologue "sermon", but rather the effective functioning (potentially) of every member of Christ's body when gathered. Why else would Paul devote so much time and space to treach and instruct on the importance of 'body ministry? cf. 1 Cor. 14:7, and Eph.4:16 - i.e. "every part".
Reply: Again, you reveal your unwarranted prejudice against sermons. By insisting on the 'effective potential functioning of every member of Christ's body when gathered' you ignore the warning of James 3: 1 - 'be not many teachers'. Furthermore, you cannot appeal to the 'body ministry' criterion without including the functioning of the revelatory gifts - tongues and prophecy. Since you deny a place to 'tongues' you are simply being selective in support of your prejudiced 'Brethrenish' agenda.
4. As a method of edifying the church and maturing believers, the monologue is about the least effective means of doing so.
Teaching of course is vital, but that can take many forms other than the sermon monologue.
Reply: who says the 'monologue' is 'the least effective' means of teaching. That is merely your private opinion. It rather depends on the preacher and his style. Again, you wrongly assume that those of us who endeavour to preach in a God-honouring manner, with biblical content, exclude other means of teaching. We do not.
Conclusion: Your refusal to accept the Apostle Paul's clear prohibition regarding the public teaching of women (in another e-mail) invalidates your high-handed claim to be following the New Testament. You are a cultic, over-reactionary liberal, at odds with centuries of faithful preaching of the kind you arrogantly dismiss. At a time when faithful preaching is desperately needed, your crusade is utterly unwelcome. Brother Graham, I urge you to examine the motives of your heart. As with David Norrington, your gifts and zeal are worthy of a better cause. You lack a sense of priority. There are other more urgent issues of truth to be championed instead of your incessant sniping at 'preaching' and valid pastoral order.
Post a Comment