Some Problems With The Church

7/31/2019 Some Problems With The Church

1/41

This article can be viewed and commented on at our website:http://newcovenantgrace.com/organic-church/the-one-man-show/

The One Man Show

If the well articulated preacher at the front were to be taken away incontemporary church meetings, 99% of the congregation would not knowwhat to do with themselves. In all likelihood, they would probably go look foranother place with a well articulated preacher at the front

Without a doubt one of the saddest decisions that has ever been made, is the BibleSocietys decision to combine both the Old Testament and New Testament manuscriptsinto one single book. This has led to widespread confusion and possibly some of thebiggest theological misunderstandings in history. It has deteriorated up to the pointwhere the majority of todays churches still cling with all their might onto the OldTestament Law, looking to it to guide them in terms of moral living. The truth is however

that the law was never designed for people to try and live by - it was designed to showthem how far they fall short of Gods holy standards. It was a signpost that pointed toJesus.

Its pretty lame to set up camp next to a signpost when we are on our way to somewhereelse, isnt it?

Fortunately a large part of the true gospel of righteousness through faithwas recoveredduring the Protestant Reformation, where a German monk named Martin Luther andsubsequently many others, rebelled against the enslaving religious systems of their day,defying the controlling and unbiblical doctrines of having to earn ones salvation byadhering to rituals and making sacrifices. These Reformers managed to restore to a

large degree the pure, first century gospel, of mankind being reconciled to God throughfaith in Christ alone, without the works of the law:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works ofthe Law. (Rom 3:28 MKJV)

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through thelaw, then Christ died in vain. (Gal 2:21 NKJV)

But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, beingwitnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of Godthrough the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe.(Rom 3:21-22a MKJV)

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is thegift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8-9 MKJV)

The gloomy reality is that in spite of the ground that was gained in restoring the gospelitself, these men did nothing to address the structured mold of the church meetings oftheir era or the synthetic hierarchies that existed within the religious institutions of theirtime. Just like many leaders within the secular church structures today, these men


2/41

thought that only ridding the messagefrom sacred customs was important, but that theother traditions within the system were acceptable. The way how the church meetingshad been reduced to one or a few people ruling over the rest with an invisible iron fistand even getting paid for it didnt seem to bother them.

In todays modern secular church we are still stuck with the remnants of the worldly

leadership structures that originated during the second to third centuries after Christ,when offices and formal titles were introduced into the body of Christ. It was theinstatement of the ceremonial office of Bishop that started this downward trend, with asingle Bishop eventually being appointed to lord and rule over each individual church. Ofcourse with Christianity being the state religion of Rome at the time (thanks toConstantine), the Bishops later became powerful political figures within society to thedegree that they were placed almost above reproach. Whenever a Bishop was accusedof a crime, he was not allowed to be judged in a normal court but was referred to aspecially assigned court for Bishops.

As the Bishops grew in power and became more involved in government and politicalaffairs, their day to day involvement in church services were taken over by specially

assigned local priests, known as presbyters. The chief Bishop also eventually becamethe first Pope.

These local priests then lorded over the churches for several centuries, ensuring that theceremonies and rituals were faithfully adhered to. That was until Martin Luther and JohnCalvin appeared on the scene. They rebelled against the oppressive religious system oftheir time, challenging the domineering belief systems and doctrines, but unfortunatelydoing nothing about the false system of control which had the church gripped by thethroat.

Luther did much to advance the restoration of the gospel of righteousness through faithand shook his fist at the overbearing Catholic practices, yet continued to enforce it,

howbeit in a different form - he insisted that lecture-style preaching during churchmeetings was unquestionably central to the Christian faith and that it could only beconducted by a formally qualified, specially appointed (ordained) minister. A Biblicalchurch gathering in his view was a bunch of Christians who got together to listen to asermon.

Calvin did not like the term priest and instead replaced it with Pastor. He stated thatThe pastoral office is necessary to preserve the church on earth in a greater way thanthe sun, food and drink are necessary to nourish and sustain the present life.

So the Reformers did well in opposing the religious doctrines of the dark ages, butpassed the Roman Catholic division between clergy and laity straight into the Protestant

movement. Every person was now allowed to minister as a priest unto God, but notevery person could be trusted to minister as a priest unto other people.

Frank Viola, in his ground breaking book Pagan Christianity, states: The rallying cry ofthe Reformation was the restoration of the priesthood of all believers. However, thisrestoration was only partial. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli affirmed the believing priesthoodwith respect to one's individual relationship to God. They rightly taught that everyChristian has direct access to God without the need of a human mediator. This was awonderful restoration. But it was one-sided. What the Reformers failed to do was to


3/41

recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood. They restored the doctrineof the believing priesthood soteriologically - i.e., as it related to salvation. But they failedto restore it ecclesiologically - i.e., as it related to the church.

While the Reformers opposed the pope and his religious hierarchy, they still held to thenarrow view of ministry that they inherited. They believed that "ministry" was an

institution that was closeted among the few who were "called" and "ordained."' Thus theReformers still affirmed the clergy-laity split. Only in their rhetoric did they state that allbelievers were priests and ministers. In their practice they denied it. So after the smokecleared from the Reformation, we ended up with the same thing that the Catholics gaveus - a selective priesthood!

It is the desire of the Holy Spirit to be able to express Himself fully through everybeliever, not just through one person standing in the place of Christ at the head of thebody. A real spiritual leader will connect the members of the body to the Head, JesusChrist, and not to himself. This does not entail training up an elite group of members inthe form of a special task force, called a leadership team; a group that will simplycontinue repeating the same folly of endorsing separation between clergy and laity.

In todays secular church setting it doesn't matter how hard the local leader or Pastortries to "get out of the way" to allow Jesus to take up His place as the head of HisChurch. The Pastor can have the purest intentions and even pass the microphone toothers to share a few words during the meetings, but in the end he stilldecides when themeeting is over, where the church is headed (being the official carrier of the "vision") andwho gets "promoted" to official positions of leadership within the church. The systemdoes not allow the Pastor to completely get out of the way and let Christ alone be thehead of His church. The Pastor is kind of stuck where is his, despite his very bestintentions.

So today we have well meaning, good hearted Pastors who faithfully perform their duties

within this religious system, who sincerely want their congregations to mature andbecome ministers themselves, but are severely limited and even opposed by the systemof control which they find themselves in. If a Pastor were to really train people to teachand minister in the way that he himself does, these trainees would soon become a threatto his monthly paycheck. Heres why: If every person in that congregation couldeventually mature to the point where they are able bodied ministers, skilled in the Word,flowing in power and the gifts of the Spirit, why would they still need to pay someone todo all this stuff forthem?

Natural Leaders

In a natural locale where no person is regarded as more important than the other, whereevery person is esteemed, leaders will naturally emerge without ever having to beappointed in a formal capacity. People will regard someone as a prophet by theprophesies they bring or as a shepherd by the way they protect their brothers andsisters.

In this setting it becomes rather meaningless having to officially employ someone topreach the gospel since every member is a functioning, contributing part of the body.Having to sit down passively to listen to a prepared sermon would actually be more a


4/41

hindrance to experience body life between believers than it would be a blessing.Restricting the Holy Spirit to showing Himself strong through only one person during ourgatherings puts a hyper-charged, mountain-sized disc brake on the diversity of ways thatHe can manifest Himself through the group.

The Every-Member-Functioning Body

It is vital to understand that life within the body of Christ can only find its purest and mosteffective expression when every member functions in the way it was designed to. Firstlywe need to understand that life outside of the body is empty, lonely and pretty hard. Infact, its unnatural. The human body was designed with a hand for example fixed ontothe end of an arm. The hand was not designed to float above the head, disjoined fromthe body itself.

The body was also not designed with just one member doing all the work. How longwould our bodies survive if only our left leg functioned? If the eyes, nose, ears, arms orany other parts stopped functioning, the body would become very limited in what it could

do. If some of the internal organs stopped functioning, the body would soon lapse into aserious ailment and possibly even death.

Christ, the Head of His Body

There was a specific reason why scripture used the analogy of Christ being the head ofHis Body, namely the church. It was so that we could have a clear understanding of howChrist wanted to relate to His Body.

The head of a body is solely responsible for carrying the vision, the functioning and thedirection of the body. All the decision making occurs in the head and is then directly

communicated to the individual parts. There is no other part of the body that can act as ago-between or a relay to convey information between the head and the body. Thatrole is reserved for the head alone.

Each and every part of the body also has a nerve that allows it to directly communicatewith the head. There is no other body part that serves the function of interpreting what itthinks the head is trying to say to the other parts. The head communicates its commandsdirectly to each and every individual part, but also to the body as a whole. It is superior inassessing the needs of each individual member and providing whatever that memberneeds, while at the same time judging its surroundings and being able to have severalbody members join forces to implement certain actions that would benefit the entirebody. There is no other single member in the body that can execute this with the same

degree of precision and efficiency than the head itself.

Its actually a wonder in itself that the Body of Christ has been able to survive for thislong, most likely only because God loves us so much. Had it not been for the continuedefforts of the Holy Spirit, this usurping, illegal, rogue system of control would havesuffocated the Body long ago.

Generally speaking, the leadership structure and the way that church services areconducted (get it? they are conducted!) in todays secular church world portrays the


5/41

Body of Christ to be a mouth that has grown out of proportion. There is a massive pair oflips standing at the front of an ocean of ears.

Top and Bottom Opposition

Two of the main reasons why there is so much resistance against ridding the church ofthis top heavy, one man show structure is the opposition from those at the top, butsurprisingly also from those sitting in the pews:

1) Those at the top would be out of a job if all the members were to start functioningas they were supposed to. So these managers need to protect their businesses(and subsequently also their main source of income) by ensuring that the currentstate of affairs continue in the same manner that it has for the last few centuries.Even though this statement might be insensitive and not portray what their heartsreflect (they might think they are Gods appointed shepherds, selected to overseeHis church), they are mostly blinded by the centuries of traditions of the leadersbefore them and have opted to continue doing things the way they have been

taught and shown by their predecessors, without delving into the history behindthe mold of the church system. Preachers are generally far more concerned withwhatthey preach than with the system withinwhich they preach.

2) The pew sitters are commonly against the idea of changing the current systemsince it would mean that they would actually need to start taking responsibility forhearing from God themselves, for stepping out and healing the sick, for castingout devils and operating in the gifts of the Spirit. Previously the mentality was thatthey could simply lure the sick or unsaved person to their church meeting andtheir Pastor would take care of the rest. All of that would now change if theydidnt have an educated, formally ordained, full time person who had to take upall the responsibility on their behalf.

The first century church meetings were a different kettle of fish.

In the Corinthian church for example their meetings brimmed over with excitement, love,spontaneous singing, prophesies and interpretations, with just about everybody teachingand exhorting each other. So great was their enthusiasm that Paul the Apostle had to laydown some guidelines for them to be able to conduct their meetings in an edifyingmanner:

Then how is it, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has apsalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.Let all things be for building up. (1 Cor 14:26 MKJV, emphasis added)

Note that he didnt discourage them from letting everybody contribute; he merely advisedthem how to do it in a less chaotic fashion for the sake of the newcomers and theunbelievers who were attending their meetings. Paul was merely channeling theirenergy!

If one speaks in a language, let it be by two, or at the most three, and insuccession. And let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him besilent in a church; and let him speak to himself and to God. And if there aretwo or three prophets, let them speak, and let the others judge. If a revelation


6/41

is revealed to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you may allprophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be comforted. Andthe spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not theauthor of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Cor14:27-33 MKJV, emphasis added)

He spoke along the same lines to the Ephesians:

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into himwho is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and heldtogether by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is workingproperly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (Eph 4:15-16ESV, emphasis added)

But instead the modern day pews keep filling up, adding to the proliferation of apowerless generation of believers who are accustomed to watching the Pastor or theministry team heal the sick and cast out devils, or in some places where the jam-packedprogram permits, a bold enough pew sitter is allowed to come forward and give a

prophetic word or two.

Lets ask some tough questions again:

If all of us are part of the Royal Priesthood of believers and are all considered to beGods holy nation, then why are we paying some of the Royal Priests to preach thegospel on our behalf?

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peoplefor possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has calledyou out of darkness into His marvelous light; (1 Pet 2:9 MKJV)

If all of usare competent ministers of life, carrying within us the burning flame of thegood news of the New Covenant and of Gods love for us, why does only one person getto share this good news regularly within a formal setting while the rest has to passivelysit down and listen to them?

who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of theletter but of the Spirit. (2Co 3:6a ESV, emphasis added)

If all of ushave the same measure of Christs gift of grace (remember it was given to usaccording to HIS measure, which means weve been given the fullmeasure), then whydo only an elect few get to exhibit it when we get together in the name of the Lord?

But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ'sgift. (Eph 4:7 ESV, emphasis added)


7/41

This article can be viewed and commented on at our website:http://newcovenantgrace.com/organic-church/church-leadership/

Church Leadership

The biggest reason why so much confusion exists around the term Church Leadershiptoday is because of the system of control within which the Bride of Christ is attempting tofunction. The intricate web of politics and the man-made hierarchies are suffocating theBody with its pious regulations, making the Body bend forwards and backwards at itswill. In contrast, the majority of people who have a title of some sort stuck before theirnames within the contemporary church seem to be thriving within the system they havehelped to create. The one group is struggling and the other is thriving - doesnt thereseem to be some sort of correlation here?

Arguably the biggest reason why church going folk struggle so hard with accepting thistype of talk is that their church leaders deliberately warn them against accepting aspects

of Biblical truth that they are not used to hearing preached from thatchurchs pulpit. Sowithout attempting to even trying to understand it, they will walk away from it. This is thelevel of deception that exists in the religious institution that calls itself the church today.

There are millions of people around the globe today who are serving in formal leadershippositions within the secular church and possibly one of the hardest things in the world isto show them how their well meant contributions to the institutions where they serve isactually detrimental to the spiritual development of the Bride of Christ. The tragic realityis that just about none of the leaders are open to discussing this topic, since the merefact that anybody even dares to question the way in which well orchestrated churchprograms are conducted in this day and age, is viewed as rebellious, usurping andseeking to bring division within the church. There are exceptions here and there, with a

small minority of leaders being open to admitting that the church system is beyondrepair, but because they depend on the current state of affairs for their livelihood, theyare reluctant (or at best unable) to do anything about it.

For those who are involved in full time, paid church ministry or church leadership, pleaseremember to distinguish between the office we are addressing in this book and thepeople who are employed in that office. We are by no means attacking peoplepersonally!

A Function, Not a Title

As mentioned before, pastors, evangelists, prophets and apostles were all meant to befunctionswithin the church, whether they are performed in an official capacity or not.They were never intended to be titles. Its exactly the same with church leaders. Yes,some of the early apostles did travel between the early churches and identified elders(Titus 1:5), yet the function of those who lead or govern within the church is listed as agiftin the Bible, just like the five fold ministry:


8/41

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28 KJVA, emphasis added)

This means that leadership is just as much a gift of the Spirit as healing. Its not a title. Itis not a position that someone can be appointed into. Instead its an out-flowing of the

character and gifts that a person has been endowed with.

Jesus taught His disciples the same thing:

But you must not be called Rabbi, for One is your teacher, Christ, and youare all brothers. And call no one your father on the earth, for One is yourFather in Heaven. Nor be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, evenChrist. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matt 23:8-11 MKJV)

Modern day religion has replaced the word Rabbi with Pastor or Prophet orTeacher or Minister. People are quite happy to march around with titles stuck before

their names.

A little later we will take a closer look at the buzz word on the mind of everybody whohas ever wanted to serve in full time ministry: Ordination.

Sad But True!

In some of the traditional denominations (not everywhere), the senior leader mainlyserves two prime functions: firstly to act as the congregations chief moral policeman andsecondly to keep the business financially afloat, which is accomplished by squeezingfinancial contributions out of the attendees. In essence, they are nothing more than

branch managers for a thriving business.

Being the carrier of an official title which elevates him above the rest of the congregation,a modern day minister also has the right to expect from the congregation to substantiallyreduce their ability to reason logically when they enter the church building. Beingmembers of his church, they are definitely allowed to chew on what he says, butquestioning him during his sermon is strictly forbidden and contesting his teachingafterwards is also mostly thwarted by the circle of supporting leaders that are put inplace to protect him, especially in the bigger congregations. For a normal churchmember to be granted an audience with the senior Pastor in the mega churches is oftenonly a far-fetched dream. It is mostly only possible after subsequent meetings with theother elders have failed, or if the matter constitutes a significant threat to their empire. It

is actually quite achievable to attend one of these churches for months and monthswithout the senior Pastor ever even knowing you.

Denominational Ministers

In the traditionaldenominations we find a very interesting but paradoxical phenomenon.The ministers, who by definition are supposed to be shepherdsof the flock, have nearly


9/41

no shepherd heart at all! In fact they are quite happy to give wolves or other predatorsfree reign in their churches from time to time. Heres how:

When a minister in a denominational church decides to go on leave or calls in sick, theywill let any guy who has been ordained within the same denomination come in andpreach at their church, whether they know this guy or not. After all, head office has

declared him competent, right? It doesnt matter if this guy brings with him the poison ofhis own preconceived ideas or half truths. There is no or little care for relating with thisnew preacher personally before allowing him to attend to the flock. Hes simply given alicense to come in and sow chaos, often leaving the flock bewildered and confused.

What stands out about this trend is that the head offices of these denominations do notfor a single second want to appear as if theyve lost face in front of the masses of peopleunder their control. They place the importance of office and formal training aboverelationshipsin the sense that they regard it as being more important to have a qualified,paid guy to perform the job of preaching other than having somebody from that localcongregation fill in for the absent minister.

This phenomenon in itself is shattering evidence of the failure of the system - it shoutsloud and clear that the aim of the local minister is in fact not to train people up to startpreaching themselves (else someone from the local congregation could have filled in forhim), but in fact to entice them to keep coming back week after week to listensubmissively to his skillful mastery of the Bible.

And saddest of all is that when the preachers within these denominations find a betterpaying position with another congregation, they will leave their own flock behind andtake the job at the new church, handing the flock over on a silver platter to whicheverpredator wishes to have them next.

No wonder the world doesnt want to have anything to do with the church

Nowhere in the Bible do we find a pattern that portrays the kind of leadership systemwhich is found in much of the church world today. Nowhere was there a centralizedhead quarters which spewed out orders and decrees to its branches. In the first centurychurch the apostles traveled between the churches, exhorting them and ministering tothem, but never as their bosses. They came in beside the people as their brothers,serving them in whichever way they could. There was no governing body that lordedover any of the first century churches - they were the highest form of authority untothemselves, with Christ directly heading up each local body of believers.

The very fact that we are actually able to "classify" our churches by being able to placeourselves within a certain flavor of the corporate, religious structure, is overwhelming

evidence that we are in fact, controlled by a system, since each of these denominationsare governed by unwritten rules of acceptable behavior. Among all the differentcongregations of Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, all the diverseflavors of Charismatic or any other type of secular church found in the world, there areclear cut similarities in their leadership structures and the manner in which they conducttheir meetings. These tactics are based on centuries of tradition and is largelyresponsible for the masses of dormant, immature believers who fill up the hundreds ofthousands of church buildings every Sunday.


10/41

The Modern Day Pastor

How did the Pastor get a member of his mega church to spend 20 minutesbalancing a coconut on his head? He simply told the church member theactivity was a ministry. (Edward The Janitor Haveren)

Its a commonly known fact that some of the most emotionally laden, unselfish and self-sacrificing people in the world are the full time Pastors in the secular church. Itsprobably one of the most unthankful jobs someone can dream of having, in fact during asurvey* it was found that next to a car salesman, a Christian Pastor was the secondmost unwanted job in the USA. Thousands upon thousands of Pastors have walkedaway from the empires they have helped create in the past, mostly due to burning outunder the intense psychological strains imposed on them by numerous factors:

Every week they need to deliver a striking sermon to the mixed crowd ofexpectant, critical, exciting and somber faces staring up at them from the pews.

They need to make sure that during the times when their church is struggling to

pay all their bills, that their encouraging of the flock to give more money doesntcome across as too forceful, since people are easily offended when it comes tomoney these days.

They are expected to deal sensibly with the immature, political bickering that issometimes found within their congregation, but occasionally also within theleadership ladder.

They need to keep up an appearance of morality, sanity, peace, wisdom and asought after relationship with God to be viewed in good stead by the rest of thechurch. Pastors are mostly not expected to show any signs of human frailty dueto being put on a pedestal by the congregation.

In the Charismatic circles they are required to present a seamlessly orchestratedconcert with a delicate equilibrium between giving the Holy Spirit room to move,

while maintaining proper order during the service. They need to coordinateclosely with the worship team not to break the atmosphere and yet come upwith a way to convey the message they prepared during the week to fit in withwhatever direction the Holy Spirit seemed to lead them during the worshipsession.

The senior Pastor is responsible for maintaining the fragile balance betweenpromoting people within their congregation to formal leader or elder status,while ensuring that not too many are appointed as leaders so as not to turn theentire church into leaders. There still needs to be a healthy percentage ofnormal people to attend and minister to.

The list goes on and on, but its easy to see why the job of a Pastor isnt for everyone.

But to the average church going Christian, in spite of all the evidence stacked up againstthis career choice, there is still something dignified about it. Its almost as if the privilegeof being able to say that youre a pastor has an untainted, consecrated and authoritarianring to it. In fact, it definitely does.

Every year thousands and thousands of aspiring full time ministers enroll for elaborateministry, college and university degrees and diplomas. Its possible nowadays to obtainformal qualifications in pastoral, apostolic, evangelical and prophetic ministry. Theoccupation of full time minister, after being around for more than 1600 years, has been


11/41


12/41

expected to be the most spiritually mature person in the congregation; a person who isworthy of his special calling as a Pastor, and of course of his paycheck.

Away from the Sunday meetings, Pastors are also entrusted with overseeing thechurchs finances, arranging extra mural activities and outreaches, mid-week prayermeetings, cell group leader meetings, church board meetings, seminars, conferences

and be on 24/7 standby for emotional or spiritual emergencies experienced by anybodyin their congregation. In fact, so well known are the tasks of the Pastor in a modern daychurch that nearly everybody who isnt a Pastor knows them as well.

And yet, this functionin the church was only mentioned once in the entire Bible... as partof a list of other functions. In every other instance in the Bible this word was translatedas shepherd. Here are some examples:

When Jesus got out of the boat, he saw the large crowd that was like sheepwithout a shepherd (poimn). He felt sorry for the people and startedteaching them many things. (Mar 6:34 CEV, emphasis added)

He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that dying to sins, wemight live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed. For you wereas sheep going astray, but now you are turned to the Shepherd (poimn)and Overseer of your souls. (1 Pet 2:24-25 MKJV, emphasis added)

The reason why the translators used the word Pastor in Eph 4:11 (especially since thisis the onlyplace in the entire Bible where poimn was translated in this manner) wasbecause by the time that the Bible was first translated into English in 1611, the man-made office of Pastor was already firmly established in the church.

From this and also from what weve discussed in our previous chapter regarding theorigin of the title of Pastor, its clear that the translators made the fatal mistake of

translating human tradition back into the scriptures, instead of letting scripture interpretitself.

Surely if pastors played even nearly as important a role in the lives of the first centurychurch as they did today, we ought to have been able to read more about them in Paulsepistles; especially since its nearly impossible to find a Pentecostal church nowadayswithout a formally ordained Pastor leading the service from the front?

Firstly its notable that a much smaller number of people have the bravado to attach as atitle one of the othergifts of the five fold ministry in front of their names. There are forexample far less people who actually have the courage to dub themselves ApostleGeorge or Evangelist Jenny or Prophet William (even though some people still do!). A

simple explanation for this is that if a person opted to carry for example the title ofProphet, their lives would be marked by consistent, accurate, consequential prophesies.The same with an Evangelist (who would be mightily transforming communities bybringing the good news to the oppressed) and Apostles (who would be nomadic, miracleworking, church planters). These people would need to be known by the functionswhichthey perform within the body of Christ, else other people would soon rat them out forbeing phonies.


13/41

However when someone opts to carry the title of Pastor, there are a myriad of man-made traditions, politics, perceptions and church policies which come into play. Its mucheasier for a person to hide behind this clutter of terminologies and get paid for it aswell.

Since we dont have an accurate description of the role of a Pastor in the first century

church, lets take a look at the Greek:

Poimen

G4166: Of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively): - shepherd, pastor.

Since a shepherd is somebody who cares for and protects sheep, it would therefore notbe inaccurate to assume that in Eph 4:11 Paul was referring to someone who loved theirbrothers and sisters with a fierce, protective love. They encouraged, aided and exhortedthe church. Thus, they too would have been known by the function they performed.Conversely in the modern day church however, most people become Pastors aftercompleting some Bible College course or after they have jumped through theirinstitutions religious and political hoops long enough. Its also quite commonplace for

someone to assume the role of Pastor if their parents have served in the office and theymanaged not to destroy their family in the process - there are literally thousands ofsecond, third, fourth and even fifth generation Pastors who lead local churches today.Instead of being a function, it has become a full time job; an official title.

To reiterate the point again, the word Pastor was a term that was put into the Bible bythe translators of the time. These people took the existing traditions of their era andtranslated them into what they though the scriptures were trying to say, instead ofstaying consistent with ALL the other renderings of the word poimn throughout theBible and translating the word as Shepherd. We therefore have no Biblical proof to forthe role of the Pastor as it exists in nearly every Pentecostal church today.


14/41

This article can be viewed and commented on at our website:http://newcovenantgrace.com/organic-church/forsake-regular-church-attendance/

Dont Forsake Regular Church Attendance

Nope, thats actually thats not what it says, so lets quickly disarm this bomb. Hebrews10:25 has to be one of the most abused and warped scriptures in the entire Bible.

not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner ofsome is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see theDay approaching. (Heb 10:25 MKJV)

We will look at two different interpretations here, the traditional interpretation and theproper interpretation, which takes into account the verses around this verse as well asreferences to other scriptures in the Bible. As we will see, even the traditional

interpretation doesnt refer to the spectator affair that secular church meetings haveevolved into.

The Traditional Interpretation

This verse has been used for centuries to warn believers against the danger ofabstaining from attending regular church meetings. Its not surprising to see why though,since nearly every commentary available on the internet interprets this verse in thesense that it is referring to regular church or worship meeting attendance. Here aresome examples:

The Berkely Version of the New Testament says: "... not neglecting our own churchmeeting."

J.B. Phillips writes in The New Testament in Modern English: "And let us not hold alooffromour church meetings."

The Living Bible states: "Let us not neglect our church meetings..."

The Ryrie Study Bible writes: The term "assembling" describes "the gathering ofChristiansfor worship and edification," and "the Day" describes "the day... of Christ's coming.

Clarke continues to warn against deserting regular Church attendance, for whateverreason:

"For fear of persecution, it seems as if some had deserted these meetings... They hadgiven up these strengthening and instructive means, and the others were in danger offollowing their example... Those who relinquish Christian communion are in a backslidingstate; those who backslide are in danger of apostasy..."


15/41

Exhorting One Another

The main problem with this interpretation is that is completely neglects the part of theverse that says exhorting one another

In 1 Corinthians 14 we have a wonderful picture of what a first century church meetinglooked like. Everybody contributed, bringing prophesy, tongues, songs and teachings tothe meeting. In fact, so eager were the people to share what God has shown to each ofthem that Paul had to lay down some guidelines for them to be able to continue doing itin an edifying manner.

How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath apsalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath aninterpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (1 Cor 14:26 KJVA)

The meetings normally brimmed over with excitement, joy, fascinating dialogues, diversetongues and interpretations thereof, various teachings and the gifts of the Spirit flowing

all over the place! It was spontaneous, unpredictable and somewhat offensive tonewcomers and outsiders, but the believers themselves knew exactly what they weredoing: They were allowing God to be Himself in their midst! It would have been an ideafar removed from their minds to have only one single person stand up for an hour anddeliver a prepared sermon, let alone pay him for doing it!

So even when interpreting this verse in the traditional manner, as thought it was referringto an actual church meeting, the conventional argument does not hold water.


The first clue ought to be that this verse doesnt start with a capital letter, which meansthat it has to be read in conjunction with the preceding verses to be able to understandthe context, especially if we remember that the original manuscripts didnt have anyverse numbers in them. Lets take a brief look at the whole chapter.

Hebrews 10 - The Victory of the Cross!

Hebrews 10 is one of the most captivating chapters in the entire Bible. It is a crystal cleardepiction of the believers absolute, unfaltering right standing with God, based on whatJesus accomplished at the cross. It exemplifies the undisputable superiority of the New

Covenant over the Old Covenant Law: a system which was upheld by the ritualslaughtering and blood sprinkling of animals. These sacrifices only managed topostpone the punishment of sins for another year - it never actually cleansed the peoplefrom their sins (v. 1-4).

It also debunks the popular Confess your sins to be forgiven doctrines by blatantlystating that once forgiven, a believer would have no more consciousness of sin (v. 2).


16/41

From verse 10 onwards it portrays how the once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ hascleansed all who believe in Him from their sins forever and describes the new and betterway of approaching God under the New Covenant, namely with boldness and fullassurance of faith, confident that the sacrifice of Christ accomplished everything thatGod intended it to - to deal a deathblow to sin and present unto Himself a blameless,completely sanctified bride. This confidence comes from faith in what Christ has done,

and not from ourselves.

Later down in the chapter (v. 26-29) the writer of Hebrews outlines the folly of trying toreturn to the weak and beggarly elements of the Old Covenant temple and offeringsystem for salvation:

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth,there remains no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for

judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 Hewho despised Moses' Law died without mercy on the word of two or threewitnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he bethought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God,

and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctifiedan unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29 MKJV)

There were Hebrews (Jews) who lived strictly according to the Old Testament lawsystem. Even when they heard the truth about the gospel, they didnt want to believe it,because verse 26 says they received the knowledge of the truthand of coursesimply knowing about something doesnt mean that we actually believe in it. Faith knowledge.

So the writer of Hebrews admonishes them by saying that if after hearing the truth of thegospel, they still decide to trample Gods New Covenant underfoot and choose to countthe blood of bulls and goats as superior to the blood of Jesus, then there remains for

them no further sacrifice for their sins. They are rejecting the only thing that can savethem and are choosing to willfully commit the sin of unbelief in Christ!

Now in this context, lets take a look at the verses surrounding our key verse:

The Proper Interpretation

19Therefore, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Holy of Holies by theblood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He has consecrated for usthrough the veil, that is to say, His flesh;21 and having a High Priest over thehouse of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,

having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies havingbeen washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faithwithout wavering (for He is faithful who promised), 24and let us consider oneanother to provoke to love and to good works, 25 not forsaking theassembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhortingone another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. (Heb10:19-25 MKJV, emphasis added)


17/41

Now in the midst of all this talk about the New Covenant, about having full assurance ofour salvation and of not turning back to the Old Testament Law for our salvation, whywould the writer throw in a line about church attendance? It simply doesnt make sense.Lets tackle these verses one by one

From verse 19 the writer starts building up to a mighty crescendo, repeatedly

emphasizing how we are now to have boldness, full assurance of faith and are tomaintain utter confidence in Gods faithfulness to have cleansed us completely from allsin. God who promised us eternal life is faithful to fulfill His promise and grant us aneverlasting inheritance. This is the profession faith that we should be holding fast onto(v. 23)

Since we receive the Holy Spirit at salvation, it is His responsibility to manifest His fruitthrough us and it becomes our privilege to be co-laborers with Christ and walk in thegood works that God had prepared in advance for us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). It istherefore natural for us to encourage each other to walk in the fullness of the Spirit, notnecessarily by telling each other what to do, but by being living, breathing examples ofthe manifested life of Christ ourselves (v. 24). Actions speak louder than words. And now

our key verse:


The Greek word for assembling (episunagg) is only found in two verses in the entireBible. A closer look at the other scripture that utilizes this word reveals that the contextactually doesnt refer to a church meeting at all:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gatheredtogether to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or

alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be fromus, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (2 Thes 2:1-2 ESV,emphasis added)

Paul here encouraged the believers that because of the wonderful prospect of beinggathered together (episunagg) unto Christ, they are not to be alarmed or frightened,which by implication means that they are to have boldness and full assurance of faith.This is exactly what the writer of Hebrews wrote. Note the similarities:

our being gathered together to him the day of the Lord (2 Thes 2:1-2)

the assembling of ourselves together... as you see the Day approaching. (Heb 10:25)

So the evidence seems to be pointing to the fact that Hebrews 10:25 could actually be amagnificent verse about the second coming (like the 2 Thessalonians verse), rather thanreferring to meeting together in a church building. The reality is however that mostpeople have been so biased by what theyve been told about this verse, that even in theface of clear evidence they would still harbor their doubts. Lets take a look at the threedifferent parts that make up the word epi-sun-agg (pronounced in English as ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay).


18/41

EpiG1909: A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order,etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.

In Greek the prefix epi is often added to words to emphasize them profoundly.Essentially it means the same as super, ultimate or hyper. Paul the apostle used it

for example to describe how he would have been exceedingly sorrowful if his brotherand fellow worker, Epaphroditus,had died.

For indeed he was sick, coming near death, but God had mercy on him, andnot on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon[epi] sorrow.(Phil 2:27 MKJV, annotation added)

It is also used in a word that describes Christs final appearing, epiphaneia, whichhappens at the end of the age:

that you keep the commandment without spot and without blame until theappearing [epiphaneia] of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Tim 6:14 MKJV,

annotation added)

Our Greek word episunagg therefore means ultimate-sun-agg or final-sun-agg- now we need to find out what the last two parts mean.

SunG4962: A primary preposition denoting union; with or together (but much closer thanG3326 or G3844), that is, by association, companionship, process, resemblance,possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.: - beside, with. In compounds it has similarapplications, including completeness.

So now we have ultimate-union-agg or final-union-agg - lets tackle the last

part

AggReduplicated from G71; a bringing up, that is, mode of living: - manner of life.

So it appears that the meaning of agg can be found by looking at its root word, ag

AgG71: A primary verb; properly to lead; by implication to bring, drive, (reflexively) go,(specifically) pass (time), or (figuratively) induce: - be, bring (forth), carry, (let) go, keep,lead away, be open.Having said all that, its clear that episunagg can be translated as follows:

Ultimate/Final - Union - Leading/Carrying away

Can it therefore be any clearer that Hebrews 10:25 it is not a warning against forsakingregular church meetings, but in fact a reference to our glorious final union and beingcarried away unto Christ Jesus?

The context becomes even clearer when we then read from verse 26 onwards howthose who neglect to receive salvation and by implication are unable to have full


19/41

assurance of faith, trample Gods grace underfoot and have no more sacrifice remainingfor sin.

So with Hebrews 10:25 unarmed, in other words having removed the confusionsurrounding this verse, not neglecting the fact that it is stillgood for believers to meettogether, lets have an open mind for exposing some of the other manmade traditions

and practices that are found in todays secular churches.


20/41

This article can be viewed and commented on at our website:http://newcovenantgrace.com/organic-church/ministry-and-money/

Ministry and Money

The main reason so many people keep on making financial contributions to their localchurches week after week, is because they blindly accept that the secular church systemwith its programs, sophisticated buildings and full time employees is what God wantedHis church to look like. Because of their conviction that its correct for someone to takeup a permanent job within the secular church system and make their livelihood off theincome collected from the attendees, they have no problem whatsoever pouring moneyinto the offering baskets or the ministrys bank account to sustain its wellbeing.

There definitely seems to be a scriptural basis for people to receive support for theirministering of the gospel, but the amount of abuse and exploitation present in todayssecular church system is mind blowing. We therefore need to take an in depth look atwhoqualified to receive support and howthey were supported by the early church.

Without a doubt the strongest arguments in favor of preserving the structures of themodern secular church come from those who earn their living off it. Their argumentsnormally include loose citations from Pauls letters and statements such as Paul earnedhis living off the early churches, so why cant I?

In this message we will be taking a look at the highly controversial topic of paid full timeministry and how the institutional church has turned into one of the most effectivebusiness models in the world; one that is able to survive in countries and localities whereeven the most ardent tradesmen have not been able to continue doing business.

Christianity started in the Middle East as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and becamea philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe andbecame a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise. (Sam Pascoe)

Full Time Ministry

In the first century church, there existed no distinction between clergy and laity. Everysingle member of the church was considered to be a competent minister of life, a royalpriest and a functioning part of the body. It would therefore have been very strange forthem to even consider paying somebody to come and do a Bible presentation at theirmeetings once per week. It would actually have been more of a hindrance than ablessing, because this guy would expect all of them to keep quiet so he can deliver hisspeech. So in the context of a properly functioning body of believers, paid full timeministry simply doesnt make sense. But we still see that certain people in the NewTestament received support from the churches, so lets dig a little bit deeper.

Local Elders


21/41

It was clear from the first century church blueprint that the shepherds of the churchesmatured from within the ranks of the local community of believers. There were twodifferent kinds of leaders: local and roaming elders. The local leaders were generallyprofessional workers who supported themselves and their families by working a secular

job. Within the church community these local leaders would then fulfill the functionof anelder (be it a deacon or bishop) and by their actionsdefine themselves as evangelists,

pastors, teachers or prophets. Conversely in our modern era, ministry is mostly confinedto full time work without a secular job.

An interesting scripture is found in the book of Acts, just after the first church of over3,000 people was born. Peter and John walked past a lame man who begged them forsome money. So Peter replied to him, saying:

But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. Inthe name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" (Act 3:6 ESV)

Nowadays however, if a Pastor had a congregation of over 3,000 people, chances arealmost certain that he would not have a problem with money. So why then did Peter not

have any money to give to this beggar? Probably because the elders of the early churchgave the money they collected to the people who were reallyin need, and not to peoplewho putthemselves in need by refusing to work with their hands.

Preachers with a permanent, stationary base of people to where they can always returnto preach full time after completing a seminar or a conference elsewhere, have noBiblical example to support their practice; firstly because they would have gotten in theway of every member functioning and secondly because the money collected by thechurch was distributed among the poor. The first century elders who stayed in a singlelocationdidnt earn any money from fulfilling their function as elders.

Roaming Elders

The roaming leaders in the first century church were mostly restricted to the apostlesand some of the evangelists (Act 21:8 & 2 Tim 4:5), with one or a few disciplesaccompanying them on their travels. They received occasional assistance from some ofthe churches during their journeys, yet by Pauls amazed reactions to these gifts we canclearly see that he didnt expect them, which meant he didnt consider them as being aregular form of income. He didnt desire to be paidfor preaching the gospel.

Even when I was in Thessalonica, you helped me more than once. I am nottrying to get something from you, but I want you to receive the blessings thatcome from giving. (Phil 4:16-17 CEV, emphasis added)

By his use of words when he addressed the carnal Corinthians (from whom he didntaccept anysupport), we see that Paul actually lamented accepting these gifts from thechurches, feeling like he was stealing from them:

I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serveyou. (2 Cor 11:8 ESV, emphasis added)


22/41

Robert Baker, in A Summary of Christian History, noted: The introduction of ministerialstipends and the implication that a paid ministry was expected to give its whole time tothe service of the church made the distinction between clergy and laity more emphatic.

Carl B. Hoch, Jr. (Professor of New Testament at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary) says:In New Testament days, leaders were normally not paid. That is, money was given

more as a gift than as an income or a salary. Leaders like Paul could receive money, butPaul chose not to receive any from the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:8-12). He wanted to servewithout depending on any church for financial support money was never to be thedriving force of ministry (1 Pet 5:2). Unfortunately, churches today will not call a manuntil they feel they can support him, and some men will not seriously consider a call ifthe financial package is "inadequate"(All Things New - Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1995 - p.240).

Follow Pauls Example

Since the majority of arguments in favor of receiving a regular paycheck from the church

seem to come from Paul the Apostles letters, lets take a closer look at what Paulactually had to say on the matter.

1 Thessalonians 2:9

My dear friends, you surely haven't forgotten our hard work and hardships.You remember how night and day we struggled to make a living, so that wecould tell you God's message without being a burden to anyone. (1 Thes 2:9CEV)

Note Pauls careful use of words; he said that he and his co-laborers workedso that they

could preach the gospel- Paul did not consider preaching the gospel as work. Read theverse again! It was very clear in Pauls mind that these were two separate issues.

Paul undeniably states here that if the church has to pay somebody to preach thegospel, it is a burden to the church. The truth is that its a hindrance to the gospel, anobstacle that Paul the Apostle worked day and night to avoid! Imagine running the 100msprint with 20kg weights tied to each leg - that's what paying someone to preach thegospel is like.

The following scriptures speak for themselves:

And Paul remained two years in his own hired house. And he welcomed all

who came in to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching thosethings concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all freedom, and withouthindrance. (Act 28:30-31 MKJV, emphasis added)

and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work withyour hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly beforeoutsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thes 4:11-12 ESV, emphasisadded)


23/41

For we are not as many, hawking the Word of God; but as of sincerity, but asof God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. (1 Cor 2:17 MKJV, emphasisadded)

Although he was a traveling leader who had a right to claim support, the Apostle Paul sethimself as an example to others by working with his own hands:

I have never wanted anyone's money or clothes. You know how I haveworked with my own hands to make a living for myself and my friends. Byeverything I did, I showed how you should work to help everyone who isweak. Remember that our Lord Jesus said, "More blessings come fromgiving than from receiving." (Act 20:33-35 CEV)

Referring to the example that he had personally set to them, Paul reinforced that thecaretakers of Gods children ought to conduct their work without expecting financial ormaterial gain. Not only that, but Paul also instructedpeople to work for themselves:

Make it your aim to live a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to earn

your own living, just as we told you before. In this way you will win therespect of those who are not believers, and you will not have to depend onanyone for what you need. (1 Thes 4:11-12 GNB)

Paul wanted to instill this principle even deeper:

Our orders - backed up by the Master, Jesus - are to refuse to have anythingto do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way wetaught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how topull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn't sitaround on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we workedour fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldn't be

burdened with taking care of us. And it wasn't because we didn't have a rightto your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example ofdiligence, hoping it would prove contagious. Don't you remember the rule wehad when we lived with you? "If you don't work, you don't eat." And nowwe're getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are takingadvantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get towork immediately - no excuses, no arguments - and earn their own keep.Friends, don't slack off in doing your duty. If anyone refuses to obey our clearcommand written in this letter, don't let him get by with it. Point out such aperson and refuse to subsidize his freeloading. Maybe then he'll think twice.(1 Thes 3:6-14 MSG, emphasis added)

Lets now take a look at two portions of scripture that have been employed to extractenough gold from believers to make the secular church system one of the mostflourishing businesses in the world today.

1 Timothy 5:17

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especiallythose who labor in Word and doctrine. (1 Tim 5:17 MKJV, emphasis added)


24/41

This scripture does not refer to money.

The measure of confusion surrounding this scripture is staggering. The Greek word usedfor honor is the word tim in the Greek. Sometimes when it referred to an objectsinherent value, this word was translated as price or proceeds - but never as payment

for doing work. In every other place in the Bible when the writers wanted to refer tocompensation (financial or otherwise) the word misthos was used, meaning reward orwages. Why did Paul not use that word in this instance? Possibly because thats notwhat he meant? Lets substitute the word honor with money in some of the otherplaces where our key word tim was used and see if it still makes sense.

For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor (money) in his ownfatherland. (Joh 4:44 LITV)

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to makeone vessel to honor (money) and another to dishonor? (Rom 9:21 MKJV)

And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, onthese we put more abundant honor (money) around them. (1 Cor 12:23aMKJV)

...for you were bought with a price (money). So glorify God in your body. (1Cor 6:20 ESV)

Therefore to you who believe is the honor (money). But to those who aredisobedient, He is the Stone which the builders rejected; this One came tobe the Head of the corner. (1 Pet 2:7 MKJV)

And whenever the living creatures gave glory and honor (money) and thanks

to Him who sat on the throne, who lives forever and ever (Rev 4:9 MKJV)

Its amazing how the translators changed the word honor to money only in this oneinstance, quite possibly because they were involved in paid full time ministry as well!

Moreover the background of this chapter was that Paul didnt want people to be afinancial burden to the church:

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should learn first to carryout their religious duties toward their own family and in this way repay theirparents and grandparents, because that is what pleases God. (1 Tim 5:2GNB)

If any believing man or believing woman has widows, let them relieve them,and do not let the church be charged, so that it may relieve those who arewidows indeed. (1 Tim 5:16 MKJV)

Pauls meaning was clear: the church ought not to be burdened unnecessarily. So inlight of this emphasis, why would Paul go on and essentially contradict himself a fewverses later? If even the widows ought not to be leeching off the church, why would Paulnow be throwing wide open the doorway for healthy, capable ministers to do the same?


25/41

The subsequent verse is habitually also used to substantiate the belief that Paul wasreferring to money:

For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox treading out grain," and,"The laborer is worthy of his reward." (1 Tim 5:18 MKJV)

In their book The Practice of the Early Church: A Theological Workbook, Atkerson andSvendsen write about 1 Tim 5:17:

"The word "honor" in this verse means just what it is translated as - honor, not pay(unless we want to conclude that we should give some elders "double pay"!). If Paul hadintended to teach that elders are to be paid, he could have used the Greek wordmisthos, which means "wages" (which he used in v.18). In v.18, Paul simply says that,

just as an ox deserves to eat because of his work, and just as a worker deserves to bepaid because of his work, so an elder deserves honor because of his work."

The very next verse gives us an example of how such honor can be bestowed upon an

elder:

Do not receive an accusation against an elder except before two or threewitnesses. (1 Tim 5:19 MKJV)

So its quite realistic to say the claim about this verse referring to moneyis far-fetched.Lets look at the second golden scripture:

1 Corinthians 9:14

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel

should get their living by the gospel. (1 Cor 9:14 ESV)

Nearly all people in "full time ministry" justify earning a monthly salary using the rightthatPaul mentioned here, completely disregarding his example, which was never makinguse of this right. He called it being a burdento the church.

When reading the Bible, context is everything. The context of this chapter is that theCorinthian church was beginning to question Pauls apostleship because he wasntclaiming any support from them when he ministered, something that they had possiblygotten used to with some of the other apostles. Its important to note that Paul wrote thischapter in defense to his right as an apostleand not as an evangelist, prophet, teacheror shepherd (pastor). Paul was specifically defending the right that an apostle had to

claim support in this chapter.

Paul argued that if he could convince the Corinthian church that an apostle had a right toclaim support, it would automatically validate his apostleship as well. Look at how hestarts the chapter:

Am I not a free man? Am I not an apostle? Haven't I seen Jesus our Lord?And aren't you the result of my work for the Lord? Even if others do notaccept me as an apostle, surely you do! Because of your life in union with


26/41

the Lord you yourselves are proof of the fact that I am an apostle. (1 Cor 9:1-2 GNB)

It was a prerequisite that someone had to have physically seen Jesus before they couldbe considered an apostle, a fact that Paul here cites as part of the proof of hisapostleship. He then continues addressing those who were passing judgment him:

When people criticize me, this is how I defend myself: Don't I have the rightto be given food and drink for my work? (1 Cor 9:3-4 GNB)

In his second letter to the Corinthians he made a startling statement:

Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden,for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save upfor their parents, but parents for their children. (2 Cor 12:!4 ESV)

Once again Paul said that he didnt desire to receive support, adding that the children(the church) should not look after the parents (the leaders), but that the parents should

look after the children. It appears that our modern day churches might have missed thisverse altogether.

Getting back to 1 Cor 9, it's imperative to understand that Paul was notcontradicting hisother letters in this chapter. He still considered that being supported was a burdento thechurch. He strongly admonished elsewhere that those who didn't work shouldn't eat,repeatedly referring to his example of notburdening the church:

You yourselves know very well that you should do just what we did. We werenot lazy when we were with you. We did not accept anyone's support withoutpaying for it. Instead, we worked and toiled; we kept working day and nightso as not to be an expense to any of you. We did this, not because we do

not have the right to demand our support; we did it to be an example for youto follow. While we were with you, we used to tell you, "Whoever refuses towork is not allowed to eat." (2 Thes 3:7-10 GNB)

Paul didnt change his mind about these issues in 1 Cor 9. The right that Paul mentionsto claim support in this last scripture was once again because he was an apostle.

In 1 Cor 9 Paul even reverts to the Old Testament Law to substantiate his claim as beingan apostle:

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own wages at any time? Who plants avineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who feeds a flock and does not

partake of the milk of the flock?8

Do I say these things according to man? Ordoes not the Law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses,"You shall not muzzle an ox threshing grain." Does God take care for oxen?10Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? It was written for us, so that hewho plows should plow in hope, and so that he who threshes in hope shouldbe partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a greatthing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others have a share of thisauthority over you, rather should not we? But we have not used thisauthority, but we endured all things lest we should hinder the gospel of


27/41

Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister about holy things live ofthe things of the temple? And those attending the altar are partakers with thealtar. 14 Even so, the Lord ordained those announcing the gospel to live fromthe gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written thesethings that it should be done so to me; for it is good for me rather to die thanthat anyone nullify my glorying. (1 Cor 9:7-15 MKJV)

Note that under the Old Testament, whenever people brought offerings to the temple, itwas in the form of food. So even if somebody wanted to use these verses as proof textfor claiming support, their remuneration would need to be in the form of food.

But Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 9 was notto prove that he should be paid for what hedid - the contextis that he wanted to prove his apostleship. However

We did mention earlier that from a historical point of view, Paul definitely did receive giftsfrom some of the churches, but we have no evidence that these gifts were consistentand substantial enough for Paul to sustain himself from it. Paul also saw the wisdom in

not becoming dependent on these gifts, to the extent that he worked day and night not tohave to survive on them. Heres why:

When we tie ourselves to another person or an institution for support, we constantlyneed to monitor our behavior so that we don't over-step the boundaries of that person'scomfort zone or the rules of acceptable behavior of that institution. Whether itsconsciously or not, we lose our freedom by making ourselves answerable to them.

Its fascinating how everybody in "paid ministry" so quickly refer to this so called rightthat Paul mentioned, completely ignoring the example that he said, by not being aburden. But if some people wanted to make use of their right to be a burden, that'sprobably their choice.

Jesus of Himself also said that He was not like the hired workers who look after Hissheep:

I am the good shepherd, and the good shepherd gives up his life for hissheep. Hired workers are not like the shepherd. They don't own the sheep,and when they see a wolf coming, they run off and leave the sheep. Thenthe wolf attacks and scatters the flock. (Joh 10:11-12 MKJV, emphasisadded)

Lets look at the Greek word used here for hired workers:

MsthtosFrom G3409; a wage worker (good or bad): - hired servant, hireling.

The Other Half of the Picture

The blame for the current situation cannot be laid squarely at the feet of those in paidfull time ministry, since we find in the secular church system today that people have noproblem paying money to a guy every week to do what God actually commanded them


28/41

to do. We are shifting our responsibility to be competent ministers and carriers of GodsKingdom onto a select few specially called people, imitating the generations ofpowerless, visionless believers who have gone before us, pew sitting their way intoheaven.

All of us are in favor of people prospering and being loaded with wealth, we are after all

children of the king! But selling the good news to people reinforces the idea ofdistinction between clergy and laity and makes Christians believe that only certainpeople are "called" to be ministers of the gospel. It also makes people believe that their"day job" is less spiritual than being "employed" in full time ministry. So there's thischeap notion that some people are less spiritual than others simply because they've notbeen able to wriggle their way onto the "leadership" of a local church somewhere, andhave consequently not been able to quit their secular jobs to take up paid positionswithin that church.

If the body of Christ had every member functioning during its meetings (and not justhave one lone ranger running the show week after week), with every person bringing ateaching or a prophesy or a tongue (all done orderly of course), there would be no need

pay someone to stand in the front and expect the rest to keep quiet while he (and healone) has the privilege to share what God has shown him during the week. On thecontrary, it would be absurd!

A Broader Look: Church and Money

Lets now a take a step back and look at how our modern day churches have becomeutterly dependent on money for its continued survival. Lets start with a soberingquestion:

If all the financial contributions were to be taken away from the place where we

fellowship, would that fellowship still survive?Think about this for a moment

With this in mind, the following logical question presents itself: What is holding ourchurch together; is it money or relationships?

The peril of having a church rely heavily on money for its conservation is that the stabilityand security of that church then becomes only as certain as its relationships with thepeople or the institutions who supplies it with the money. Once those relationshipsbecome tainted, the money stops. In cases where the money doesnt stop, exploitationand control normally sets in. In either case, its bad news. In the first case the church hasto close its doors. In the second case the church continues to function, but subjects allits attendees (even if its only indirectly) to the manipulation and politics that goes on in

the top levels.

Its a Numbers Game!

If the secular church were one half as concerned with mobilizing and commissioning thepeople who attended their regular services than with the number of people they get in,the face of the world would have been different today. Nowhere in scripture were we


29/41

ever commanded to gather up thousands of people around us. In fact, the commandwas to goto all the nations and not bring inall the nations.

In every single place where believers get together in a structured manner with a full timePastor preaching from the front, an organist or a worship band leading the people insinging some songs or hymns and where the congregations are made to sit down in the

pews (or luxury chairs nowadays), there are overhead costs that need to be covered,such as:

1) The pastors salary2) The rent or mortgage of the building3) Building maintenance4) Electricity and water bills5) Continuous upgrading of the infrastructure as the numbers grow6) Bookkeeper7) Salaries for more and more full time staff as the work load gets bigger8) Etc.

The overwhelming majority of pastors try to avoid the issue of numbers for as long andhard as they can, but in the end the facts always stare them in the face: They neednumbers to survive. The more people we can get in, the faster our bills will get paid. Inany case, we will be doing better work for Gods kingdom since we will be reaching morepeople, wont we?

But heres the sobering reality: Apart from the type of service that they sell and themethod of collecting the money, what difference is there between the above financialbusiness model and for example a company that provides a consulting service (such asengineering or legal advice) that would have the following expenses:

1) The advisors salary

2) The rent or mortgage of the office building3) Building maintenance4) Electricity and water bills5) Continuous upgrading of the infrastructure as the numbers grow6) Bookkeeping services7) Salaries for more and more full time staff as the work load gets bigger8) Etc.

There doesnt seem to be much difference between the two. Without the clients payingfor the services provided, the business simply wont survive. More and more funds areneeded just to keep the system running.

Curry Blake from John G Lake Ministries1

says: The pastor used to be spiritual, but nowall he can do is preach about money! Well you know why? Because hes got to havesome! He used to be able to devote his time studying scripture and seeking the Lord, butnow hes got to get in enough money in to keep the beast running.

Wayne Jacobsen in his book, The Naked Church, wrote the following: The church isnaked. Who hasn't seen its deficiencies and wondered why we keep on going with it?But this is difficult to admit. If it is true, what do we do with our multimillion-dollar


30/41

mortgages and operating expenses, our singing celebrities and their adoring fans, ourcommittees and their policy statements?

Methods of Collecting the Money

The sophisticated machinery of the church system will come to a grinding halt and bereduced to nothing more than a pile of rusted bolts without its most important lubricant:the tithe. Whether the motives preached are that people need to be giving out of amotive of love, generosity, joy or whatever, the fact is that the money still goes towardskeeping the system running. There are two important aspects to consider when givingaway money:

1) Our motive for giving as well as how much to give:

2 Cor 9:7 teaches us to give cheerfully and not reluctantly or out of compulsion. Wetherefore have the privilege to make up our own minds as to how much and howregularly we are able to give cheerfully and not have the Pastor twist our arm to give just

because the establishment needs funds.

2) Where to give

Most preachers will only cover the first point, but never guide people with some wisdomin whereto give their financial gifts. Any money that manages to leave the church to gothe poor or needy or to missionaries, is the portion thats left over after all the salaries,mortgages and other costs have been deducted. In general people are oblivious of theseissues, all too happy that the money has now left their hands and that its therefore up totheir church leaders to apply wisdom in whereto spend the money. Well how about this:

Since we are now the church and not the fancy building where people meet on

Sundays, its unbiblical to give money to the institution that calls itself the church. Howabout trusting the Holy Spirit to start showing us whereto give for a change?

In churches where the Biblical truths of the grace and righteousness of God are theprevalent messages, the Pastors are beginning to trust the Holy Spirit who lives insidetheir flock to lead their people into truth in terms of moral living. The leaders in thesechurches have learnt to actually stop being the congregations moral policemen andhave started trusting that the Holy Spirit would wake up the desire in their flock to livemoral and upright lifestyles, befitting those who belong to the Kingdom of God. Thesepreachers have learned the value of stopping to try and lord over their congregations.And yet these same leaders still dont trust the Holy Spirit to do the same work when itcomes to the giving of financial gifts, for the simple reason that they need the money to

keep their establishment running. The congregation cant be trusted to give to whoeverthey feel led to give to, because then the churchs bank accounts would run dry.

A very peculiar phenomenon that is widespread among all religious establishments isthat whenever people are encouraged to give money to the Lord, they are also providedwith the ministrys bank details or an offering basket where they can deposit or drop themoney with which they intend to bless God. Its truly fascinating!


31/41

Will You Still Preach the Gospel If You Stopped Getting Paid For It?

Many faithful church goers would argue that theirPastor is not in it for the money, thattheir Pastor preaches the gospel because of his love for God. But have they everstopped and thought about whether their Pastor would continue preaching the gospel ifthey stopped paying him for it? Would he still show the same zeal for Gods kingdom if

nobody in his church made any financial contributions and he had to stand by and watchthe entire local church fall apart? Theyd have to sell the building, retrench the salariedstaff, sell off their audio visual equipment, etc. and get back to the place where they metsimply in homes, like people did in the first century church. The very thought of thiswould probably give most people who love their local church a few nightmares.

Some of the people who dont pay their Pastors a salary might probably be smiling atthis point, thinking themselves to be exempt from this issue. The sad news is that eventhough their Pastor or preacher isnt getting paid for their service, unfortunately they arestill preventing every member of the body from functioning the way God had intendedHis church to function, by standing at the head of the church week after week while theircongregation gets to stay warm and comfortable in the pews.

But lets put all this aside for a moment and ask the question again: If we were to ceasereceiving money for spreading the good news, would our motives for ministering thegospel remain the same?

If church leaders really had any confidence in the message they were preaching andwere confident that they were making disciples and empowering other believers tobecome teachers and ministers themselves, why don't they give other people in theircongregation the opportunity to teach and preach from their pulpit as well? A noteworthyphenomenon is that even when some of the other appointed elders in the congregation(other than the "senior pastor") starts being given the privilege to preach, the frequencyat which they preach is still governed in such a way that the "senior pastor" still preaches

enough to justify earning his salary.

It's true that trust and responsibility is something which is earned over time, but if thesystem were actually set up in such a way that it was based on relationships and not onmoney, then there would have been no need for believers to "earn" trust before theycould function as teachers or leaders. They would simply have slotted themselves intothat function within the community of believers where they were fellowshipping throughthe way in which they conducted themselves. The way in which the current churchsystem functions however, shows a greater resemblance to a business model with paidemployees than it does to a living, breathing organism.

So Who Gets To Be On The Payroll?

So we have established that there definitely exists a precedent for people to be paid forministering the gospel. However in light of all weve discussed above, lets try andnarrow down the list of people who would actually be eligible to receive financial support,following the Biblical example of the first century church. Heres a list of criteria thatneeds to be met:

1) They need to be preaching the gospel


32/41

Right there nearly 90% of people in full time ministry are disqualified, since the volatilemixture of Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace coming from the pulpits do notamount to the gospel that the New Testament ministers lay their lives down for. Thegood news of Gods unconditional love and the finished work of the cross is preachedwith a subtle amount of condemnation mixed in, creating a poisonous brew that tastes

good initially, but causes insecurity and immaturity in the body of Christ.

2) They are nomadic

Against the backdrop of a church that is experiencing true body life, where eachmembers opinion is considered to be valuable and every person is encouraged tocontribute to the gatherings and bring their individual giftings and flavor of life to thetable, there exists no scope for single person to dictate the meetings. Thus the idea of aformally appointed, paid leader to govern the regular assemblies does not have a basisin scripture.

We do however find more than scant evidence of the early churches sending support to

Paul and his traveling companions. They came in and spent some time at the churchesin the different cities, exhorting, teaching and ministering to them (sometimes even forconsiderable periods - but never with the intention of staying permanently) and thendeparting again to allow the church to return to its every-member-functioning ways oncemore.

3) An exception to the rule

The only way that a stationary minister of the gospel could justify being supported,would be if they had local people gathering in an every-member-functioning setting andwere training them to be competent ministers themselves. They would be pouringthemselves into the lives of those they were discipling on a daily basis, teaching them

the principles of the kingdom and walking them toward the road of maturity by beingliving examplesof what they were propagating. They would not shy away from allowingeverybody to contribute during their meetings, since that would actually be their maingoal: To present unto Christ a mature bride.

The difficulty in finding people to support somebody in a role like this is of courseoverwhelming. The relationship between the person who ministers (lets call him a localapostle for arguments sake) and the people who support him would need to be basedon love, care, sincerity and be manipulation-free. The local apostle would alsounderstand that he would only be able to equip these people for a certain period of timebefore releasing them and moving on to another group of people, in order not to keepthem dependent on his giftings and preventing them from starting to step out

themselves. The local apostle might in some cases find that his previous disciples arewilling to support him in his future endeavors, but it would all need to be on the basis oflove and respect earned over a period of time.

Since the issue of money is such a controversial one and the majority of moneycollected by secular churches is taken in the form of tithes, lets take a more detailedlook at some interesting facts regarding the issue of tithing.


33/41

This article can be viewed and commented on at our website:http://newcovenantgrace.com/organic-church/tithing/

The Sacred Cow of Tithing

Under the Old Testament temple system, Israel never had to bring money to the temple -it was always ten percent of their produce or animals. This was done so that the Leviticalpriests who conducted temple service could have food to eat. The following portion ofscripture sheds a very interesting light on the subject:

You shall tithe

Documents

Some Problems With The Church