Apostolic Friends Forum

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)
-   Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   A Glorious Church? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52178)

votivesoul 04-15-2018 08:05 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
The thing I don't get is why in the world anyone would prefer their pride over being corrected, so that they might move forward and be in the right, instead of getting left behind in their hubris and remain in the wrong.

I don't always automatically concede to anything anyone might have to say to me when they think I'm in the wrong, but I want to hear them out at least, and seriously weigh what they have to say, and have a discussion about it, share the way I see things, etc.

But for some, the moment you say a word, they lose their minds and put up this wall, or worse, ascend their imaginary throne and spit vitriol at you for daring to suggest they might be wrong about something.

Granted, sometimes it's the manner of approach that people have a hard time with, but even that only exists as a different shade of the same pride.

I've been wrong about a lot of things, and I am glad every time I learn of it. Especially when it comes to Bible doctrine.

Somehow people have come to associate the idea of having an open mind with being gullible or weak-minded, I guess. That any suggestion that they are wrong about something, like the Word of God or the way they understand it, is some horrible accusation of them being immature wind-tossed babies who haven't had a real encounter with Jesus; or maybe feeling like they are being accused of being mere pawns of the Deceiver, is the issue. I don't know.

Maybe some people just have to be the "teacher", never the "student". The role-reversal is just more than they can bear.

Aquila 04-15-2018 01:35 PM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Interesting article on elder leadership:

Elder Rule & Congregational Consensus
https://ntrf.org/index.php/2016/08/0...nal-consensus/

Amanah 04-16-2018 08:26 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Why isn't the model of leadership proposed in the opening posts more prevalent?

Most of those who are leading in this proposed model are those who were saved in the traditional church model, are gifted elders and able to lead a home fellowship.

A majority of the home church fellowships are charismatic, or Hebrew roots, or in some way not Apostolic. It does not seem viable for the majority of people.

Amanah 04-16-2018 09:26 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Aaron, is this the attitude you mean to promote on this forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1527228)
Remember, as the Roman Catholic Church was being formed, good men, of good moral fiber, were humbly beseeching men to "submit" to ecclesiastical authority in the name of "obedience" and "unity". Their cause seemed noble. Their cause seemed godly. But as history will show, error breeds error. And in the end, we have a bloated, gluttonous, whore of a religion with the blood of over 68 million on her hands from over 1,260 years of bloody persecution, inquisitions, and war.

Don't fool yourselves. When you see these doctrines and traditions of man peppered throughout the Apostolic church, you have to see what it really is. It is what the Roman Catholic Church looked like among true believers prior to hatching and becoming the beast we read about in history. Are we so foolish, so cowardly, so spiritually spineless, that we quiver and shake at the knees afraid of challenging what will one day become a new form of "papal" authority???

Rebellion against man is obedience towards God.

We need a Bible revival.


Amanah 04-16-2018 09:44 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1527232)
Aaron, is this the attitude you mean to promote on this forum?

maybe this is why the home church movement has not gained ground? the attitude is so bitter that God can not bless it?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1527228)
Remember, as the Roman Catholic Church was being formed, good men, of good moral fiber, were humbly beseeching men to "submit" to ecclesiastical authority in the name of "obedience" and "unity". Their cause seemed noble. Their cause seemed godly. But as history will show, error breeds error. And in the end, we have a bloated, gluttonous, whore of a religion with the blood of over 68 million on her hands from over 1,260 years of bloody persecution, inquisitions, and war.

Don't fool yourselves. When you see these doctrines and traditions of man peppered throughout the Apostolic church, you have to see what it really is. It is what the Roman Catholic Church looked like among true believers prior to hatching and becoming the beast we read about in history. Are we so foolish, so cowardly, so spiritually spineless, that we quiver and shake at the knees afraid of challenging what will one day become a new form of "papal" authority???

Rebellion against man is obedience towards God.

We need a Bible revival.


Aquila 04-16-2018 10:06 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
5 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1527220)
Why isn't the model of leadership proposed in the opening posts more prevalent?

Most of those who are leading in this proposed model are those who were saved in the traditional church model, are gifted elders and able to lead a home fellowship.

A majority of the home church fellowships are charismatic, or Hebrew roots, or in some way not Apostolic. It does not seem viable for the majority of people.

My experience is that the more main stream and balanced organizations and local churches don't support house churches because of a few reasons. The three I've encountered are:
- Pastors often fear that they are a threat to pastoral power. One pastor I know shut down an entire care group network that he originally supported the moment a couple of the elders began to be truly praised by the people for their teaching, tenderness, and anointing. People began asking the pastor to let them preach more often. And several even suggested that these men should be released to start daughter works. The pastor shut it down instantly and commanded that all cease gathering in these home based gatherings. Sadly, these men were then taken off the preaching rotation and found themselves frustrated in their callings. One launched out on his own, leaving for California. The other launched out and started a church in Tipp City, Ohio. The other started a word in Urbana, Ohio. The rest of the care group leaders remain in pews, disenchanted, wondering why the pastor crushed their callings.
- Participative and discussion based groups tend to allow for questions. What is a house church elder, care group leader, or whatever we wish to call them to answer when sincere individuals with a love for the Bible ask about unbiblical standards and requirements that are clearly not in God's Word? As the group gets into deeper study, prayer, and reflection, it casts doubt on the unbiblical tones that are ringing out from the pulpit. And so pastors find their authority challenged. Some pastors, of sincere and tender hearts, have even told me to my face, "Brother, if I didn't preach what this organization requests of me, this district could give me trouble. We have a thriving church, we can't afford that." And so, such groups can prove problematic as people begin to dig into the Word.
- Also, house churches in the United States started out as an act of abandoning the institutional churches. This created a lot of unnecessary bad blood between the two. And so, many pastors associate house churches with rebellious and even hostile believers. It's taken several years for house church leaders to try to get that perception changed. However, many house churches are rather fundamental in their opposition to institutional church forms.
The house church movement is looking at demographics. There are millions of "unchurched" Christians who do not attend a specific church for various reasons. And as cities and urban populations grow, house churching is looking like the most viable method of reaching these demographics. Building a building on the edge of town and trying to convince the millions who dwell in the inner cities to attend just isn't looking as viable as it used to. So, house churchers are simply holding their position and watching as more and more churches close their doors (even many who are called "mega-churches") and seeking to pick up where these sheep are scattered.

It's often been said in house church circles that in the next generation, due to population growth, location, and general distrust for money hungry institutions, more and more believers will be attending house churches and simple church gatherings than ever in the United States. An increasing number of sincere Christians are wondering why they should give so much money to support such massive buildings that are only used a couple times a week and salaries for pastors who are becoming celebrity millionaires, or preaching their politics, when these believers feel they could be giving money directly to local charities that help the poor, the sick, the abused, and the hungry.

Our house church had a ministry called, "Helping Hands". We volunteered at local charitable organizations once or twice a month on a rotation. We also committed to raising funds for these charities. My family chose the Dayton Gospel Mission. We volunteered there and raised quite a bit of money to help the homeless and the economically struggling. Here are some photos from our work at the Dayton Gospel Mission...

P.S.
Many traditional churches want all of your tithes, donations, offerings, etc. to go to the church or programs run by the organization the church is affiliated with. In addition, many Apostolic churches discourage volunteering with charities that are not "Apostolic". And since those are often few and far between in some cities, the Apostolic has nothing to really do but show up, obey whatever is told them, and give their money to the pastor and programs within the organization. Now, this doesn't mean that Apostolic churches don't periodically have food drives etc. during holidays. I'm talking about established charities that often serve thousands of needy people within the community every day of the year. House churches don't function this way. We look to help the local community by serving these local charities regardless of their denomination or creed. We see it as a mission to reach and share the Gospel with those in need, but also with those we work along side of in these charitable organizations. Since house churching doesn't focus on owning buildings, house churches can give as much as 80% of money raised to chosen charities and benevolence work, as opposed to having 80% of money raised go to fund buildings, utilities, and salaries, leaving 20%, or less, for charities and benevolence work.

In all honesty, if one attends a healthy house church... they will be quite busy serving the poor, the needy, and the homeless. We found the need being far beyond the available time we had, and so we began recruiting Christian volunteers from other churches near us! LOL

Aquila 04-16-2018 10:10 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1527233)
maybe this is why the home church movement has not gained ground? the attitude is so bitter that God can not bless it?

Don't confuse these two things:
- Bitterness against institutional churches held by many house churches.

- Rejection of the traditions of man.
One needs to be repented of.

The other we need more of.

It's a blight on the house church movement that so many house churches are bitter and fundamentalist against institutional churches.

But house church or not, we should be a people of the book. That means regardless as to if one attends a house church or a traditional church, one should be so committed to the Word of God that they take a stand for it against the traditions of men.

From my perspective.... it looks like you are trying to make an excuse for teaching the traditions of men as doctrine. Now, I know that isn't your intention. But the end result is to coo us to sleep so that we will just "obey" the unbiblical standards leveled upon us.

I find that spiritually negligent.

Amanah 04-16-2018 10:14 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1527243)
Don't confuse the two.

It's a blight on the house church movement that so many house churches are bitter and fundamentalist against institutional churches.

But house church or not, we should be a people of the book. That means regardless as to if one attends a house church or a traditional church, one should be so committed to the Word of God that they take a stand for it against the traditions of men.

From my perspective.... it looks like you are trying to make an excuse for teaching the traditions of men as doctrine. Now, I know that isn't your intention. But the end result is to coo us to sleep so that we will just "obey" the unbiblical standards leveled upon us.

I find that spiritually negligent.

I find you spiritually abhorrent in your rebellious attitude. you don't want to work together to build, you only want to destroy.

Aquila 04-16-2018 10:19 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Amanah (Post 1527245)
I find you spiritually abhorrent in your rebellious attitude. you don't want to work together to build, you only want to destroy.

What do I want to destroy?

Amanah 04-16-2018 10:40 AM

Re: A Glorious Church?
 
you want to destroy the conservative Church, see below

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1470106)
Politically progressive and moderate Christians are starting to consider bringing protest, publicity, and disruption to right-wing churches.

Take the Politics of Disruption to Church
https://sojo.net/articles/take-polit...ruption-church

Excerpts:

By now, most of us have learned that 81 percent of white evangelicals who cast their vote did so for Trump. And the same is true of 60 percent of the white Catholics who voted. And, lest mainliners feel off the hook, 58 percent of Protestants, in general, voted for Trump. It is easy to see the ways in which current social injustices reflect the commitments of conservative white Christianity.

However, this isn’t another effort in the continuing criticism of conservative Christianity; we need to challenge progressive Christianity.
And...
If we want to confound and disrupt the narratives of oppression, we need to raise our angry voices in the pews as well as the streets.

I literally mean we should disrupt our churches. Just as Black Lives Matter has employed a politics of disruption to raise the national alarm about racist policing. Just as the water protectors at Standing Rock have created a human barrier against pipeline construction. So too, should we disrupt and confound any and every congregation that fuels militarism, economic exploitation, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, or transphobia.

While such an approach is uncomfortable and risky, it is hardly novel. We worship a man who marched into the Temple during its most busy week, disrupted its market place, and proceeded to occupy it for a week while telling stories that overtly undermined the authority of the priests and scribes and exposes their complicity with Rome.

Jesus was so offensive that “the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him.” Jesus, like all the prophets before him, disrupted the injustices of their day by going to the center of myth making. They went to the Temple, the palaces, and the places of sacred meaning. And with bold words and deeds, they disrupted.

And it was, I believe, effective. Conventional wisdom tells us that interstate shut downs or Temple disruptions only “hurt the message.” But Paul Engler, director for the Center for Working Poor in Los Angeles, suggests that divisive tactics like those employed by Black Lives Matter and other groups force people to form an opinion about issues even if they disapproved of the tactics being used. He and his brother Mark write, in their book This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century:
"Time and again, patterns of polarization appear in democratic movements in the United States and abroad. Looking back from the safe removal of history, it can be easy to imagine that landmark social and political causes of the past--whether they involved ending slavery, securing the franchise for women, or establishing standards of workplace safety--were popular and widely celebrated. But the truth is that, in their time, these issues generated tremendous controversy. In promoting them, activists had to make the difficult decision to invite division and acrimony before they achieved their most impressive results." [Source: This is an Uprising, page 208]
We need to do likewise — even if it offends our sensibilities and challenges our desires for unity. It isn't enough to simply offer an alternative Christianity; we must disrupt the way a distorted gospel fuels imperialism.

It is time that we don the prophetic mantle within our churches and engage tactics of disruption so that Christians no longer feel comfortable going about business as usual. So that the vast and moderate middle is forced to contend with the issues and no longer remain complicit with the ways that Christianity has been used to justify oppression.
The strong delusion that has caused so many to align themselves with Donald Trump (in spite of his glaring fascism and hypocrisy) is fueling a movement that is preparing to confront right-wing Christianity.

Has the radical "conservatism" in our churches gone too far to the right?



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.