Worship-11A-DividedWeFall

WANDERING SOUL, LONELY HEART &
THE SIDE-TRACKED CHURCH

WORSHIP THE FIRST-CENTURY WAY

DIVIDED WE FALL....

�� God, you alone are worthy of praise ~ Father of Life, Spirit of Promise, Son of Glory.� We fall at your feet unworthy of your love and your notice.� We are sinners.� Yet you love us still.

�� I knew a young lady in high school who, despite what I'm about to tell you, was very likeable.� For occasionally she would get out her mirror, flick a willowy wisp of hair back, and say to the mirror, "You gorgeous doll, you!� I can hardly stand myself sometimes, I'm so gorgeous!� Look at what you've done for the world; your beauty is beyond belief!� Oh, you gorgeous, doll!"

�� Well, as long as she didn't do it every day, we thought it was funny.� Funny because she didn't really believe it.� If for a second we thought she did believe it, we would have walked away from her in disgust.� Besides, although she was attractive, she wasn't knock-out gorgeous.� If she had been, that would have turned us off too.

�� But isn't that what we have done in the religious world today?� Haven't we, as individual denominations, been flaunting our perfection in front of each other?� And meaning it?

�� Who is perfect?� Only God is perfect.� How dare we flaunt our perfection in front of God?� How dare we flaunt our perfection in front of each other and create division in the church!�

�� Only one thing can bring unity, and that is to "flaunt" our sinful state in front of each other.� Then together we must all kneel at the cross in humiliation and beg Jesus to forgive us.

�� Our divisiveness is one of the reasons people have left the church completely.� Our divisiveness is one of the reasons we cannot attract lost souls.� Our divisiveness does not bless us, but rather curses us.� It gets us sidetracked from the real issue of saving souls.

�� When Jesus' apostles discovered some stranger casting out demons in Christ's name, they said, "we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."� What did Jesus reply?

�� "Do not stop him!� No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us"(Mark 9:38-40). [1]

�� What is also interesting about this is that it came from a spirit of pride.� A few days prior to this event, Jesus found his apostles arguing.� Why?� They had all taken their turn trying to cast out a demon, but all failed (Mark 9:16, 28f).� Could it be they were arguing over whose fault it was that their miracle didn't work?

�� Then, on the road away from there they started arguing again.� This time it was over who was going to be greatest when Jesus set up his new kingdom (Mark 9:33-35).

�� Still not having learned their lesson, even after Jesus told them, "Do not stop them," they began excluding children from coming to Jesus (Mark 10:13-16).� This self-elevation made Jesus "indignant" at them.��

�� And if that weren't enough, James and John returned to him with their mother wanting to be bishop and vice-bishop in the new kingdom (Mark 10:35-38).

�� They were still thinking in terms of an earthly kingdom and an earthly headquarters (probably in Jerusalem).� If this is what the prospect of world headquarters on earth did to the closest friends of Jesus himself, what has it done to us today?

�� Every once in awhile someone knocks on my door wishing to tell me about Jesus and his love for me.� Occasionally one of them will ask me what my denominational affiliation is.� When I answer, "I'm just a Christian," they reply, "But what kind of Christian?".� When I reply, "just a Christian of the Bible," they say, "Oh, you belong to the Christ of the Bible Church?"� Then I reply something like, "No, I'm just a Christian who belongs to the church of the New Testament."� They reply, "Oh, you belong to the Church of the New Testament?� I never heard of that one.&"

�� Isn't that the way we think today?� In terms of organizational affiliation instead of Christ affiliation?

�� H. G. Wells in his OUTLINE OF HISTORY said in 1920, "It is necessary that we should recall the reader's attention to the profound differences between this fully developed Christianity [of the fourth century] and the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth....It was not priestly, it had no consecrated temple, and no altar.� It had no rites and ceremonies.� Its sacrifice was 'a broken and a contrite heart.'� Its only organization was an organization of preachers, and its chief function was the sermon.

�� "....though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, was mainly a priestly religion....the centre of its elaborate ritual was an altar...And it had a rapidly developing organization of deacons, priests, and bishops." [2]

�� Jesus prayed over and over that we may be one (John 17).� He wouldn't have prayed for the impossible.

Perfect Pattern, Imperfect People

�� The basis of Christian unity is found in John 17:11 where Jesus said [caps mine], "Holy Father, protect them by the power of YOUR NAME ~ the NAME YOU GAVE ME ~ so that THEY MAY BE ONE as we are one."� Whose name do we carry?� Are we hyphenated Christians?� Do we call ourselves Baptist-Christians, Lutheran-Christians, Presbyterian-Christians, Nazarene-Christians, Mennonite-Christians?

�� A divided church cannot win the world to Christ.� As long as we delay winning the world to Christ as Jesus commanded just before he entered heaven, we delay his return.�

�� The president of a denominational theological seminary long ago said in an address, "Denominationalism is dead at the roots, but not yet in the branches.� In time, the branches will wither and denominationalism will be dead.� Denominationalism in the sixteenth century brought us individual and group liberty.� These we must keep, but there is no excuse now for divisions." [3]

�� Martin Luther said, "I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves Lutherans, but Christians.� Who is Luther?� My doctrine is not mine!� I have not been crucified for anyone.� St. Paul (1 Cor. chapters one and three) would not have that any should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ.� How, then, does it benefit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of Christ?� Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions; away with them all; and let us call ourselves only Christians after him from whom our doctrine comes." [4]

�� John Wesley said in the preface of his NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, "Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases and forms, which have divided the Christian world, were forgot; and that we might agree to sit down together as humble loving disciples, at the feet of our common Master, to hear His word, to imbibe His Spirit, and to transcribe His life into our own." [5]

�� Jesus emphasized our oneness again just before he left the earth in Matthew 28:19.� "Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."� What is that name?

�� Philippians 2:9-11 says, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

�� Well, what about our creed books?� The books that explain what we must do be accepted by our particular denomination?� Do we actually believe we can clarify God's Word?� Do we actually believe God is not capable of writing something we can all believe in alike?

�� Have you ever read your church's creed?� It may surprise you.� Most creeds cover a few general beliefs, but speak most to a particular belief that separates that religious body from others.� Examine several creeds for yourself.� You will find that they are divisive, for they emphasize mostly matters of opinion.� Honest opinion, but still opinion.

�� H. G. Wells said regarding religion in Europe, "Its priests and bishops were more and more men molded to creeds and dogmas and set procedures; by the time they became cardinals or popes they were usually oldish men, habituated to a political struggle for immediate ends and no longer capable of world-wide views.� They no longer wanted to see the Kingdom of God established in the hearts of men ~ they had forgotten about that; they wanted to see the power of the church, which was their own power, dominating men....

�� "They were intolerant of questions or dissent, not because they were sure of their faith, but because they were not.� They wanted conformity for reasons of policy....This was a spirit entirely counter to that of Jesus of Nazareth.� We do not hear of his smacking the faces or wringing the wrists of recalcitrant or unresponsive disciples." [6]

�� If a creed is more than the Bible, it is too much.� If it is less than the Bible, it is too little.� If it is the same as the Bible, why do we need it?� Instead of swearing on our creed books, instead of signing oaths that we agree with our creed books, why don't we swear on the Bible and sign oaths that we agree with the Bible?

�� Oh, blessed Jesus.� Forgive our arrogance.

Institutionalizing the Church

�� Years ago a parable went around something like this.� A demon needed advice from a devil on how to discourage the church in his area because someone had gotten hold of a grain of truth.� If used properly, it could blow up the devil's whole business.

�� The demon was advised by the devil, "Just tempt him to take that grain of truth and organize it.� Make it the basis of some kind of society, or lodge, or club.� Then he'll spend his time running the club, and he won't have any time to use the truth against us."

�� The last anyone heard, the grain of truth, which was the nucleus of the organization he founded, was left useless in a glass case in the lobby of the building that the new organization erected.

�� The Pharisees in Jesus' day were institutionalists.� They had added all kinds of traditions to the Law of Moses.� They had added� hundreds of rules to explain what people must do to keep each of Moses' laws.

�� In the four-volume CODE OF JEWISH LAW put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company, there are listed twenty-one explicit rules governing the rite of hand washing before eating.� Here are just some of them:

�� If the food eaten is smaller than an egg, I must wash my hands but I do not have to say the benediction.� No part of my hand up to the wrist must be untouched, including my finger tips and between each finger.� I must first clean my fingernails so there is no obstruction between the water and my fingers.� Just in case I accidently miss a spot, I should do it twice.� Further, as I wet my hands, they must be palm up in accordance with Psalm 134:2 ("lift up your hands").� If my unclean hand touches my clean one, I must start over. [7]

�� We may think this is ridiculous.� But is it any more ridiculous than the volumes each denomination has written to explain the details of how we must follow a particular command of Jesus?

�� Jesus said in Mark 7:6-9, "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.� They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'� You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

�� The Jews needed to go back.� Back before all the volumes of traditional laws had muddied the simplicity of God's Law given to Moses 2000 years before.� They needed to let go.� Can we let go of our creeds and denominationalism?� It is possible?� Are our egos too relentlessly strong?

�� What would happen if Jesus visited today and told us the same things he told the Jews?� Would Jesus view all our modern church laws a help?� Or a hindrance?� Could we go back?� Back before all the volumes of church laws that muddy up the simplicity of God's Law and divide us from each other?

�� Do we have the courage to do what the Jewish leaders could not bring themselves to do?

�� The Pharisees were institutionalists, just as denominationalists are today.� Jesus was an idealist, and short on organization.� Did Jesus make a mistake?� Jesus disregarded the Pharisees' human authority and all their laws.� So they murdered him rather than let go.

�� The only organization set up for the church was to have elders/bishops (same office) and deacons in every church (congregation) as explained in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.� These scriptures give qualifications, so we know they were official positions in the church.� Nothing was ever said about one elder/bishop being over the others within the congregation, or one being over other congregations.� Nor was any arrangement made for a meeting of delegates to vote on beliefs.

�� Actually, it was not until about the time of the apostle John's death around 95 AD that several congregations appointed one elder to be head over the other elders and be called a bishop.� In 120 AD the bishop of the largest congregation in some metropolitan areas told the other congregations he was head over them.� A century later these bishops were being called papa/pope/father/patriarch.� In 300 AD, the bishops of the strongest cities in a province announced they were archbishops.� In 700 AD the strongest bishop among all the provinces in the known world announced he was head over all the others.� He was called the pope.�

�� One seemingly innocent decision was not so innocent after all. �God's command had been tampered with.� The world reeled from it for centuries to come.

�� As far as councils go, it is great for Christians to get together and talk about their belief in the Bible and to reaffirm each other.� But it is going beyond the scope of the Bible for representatives of congregations to come together as delegates to do our thinking for us and vote on what we must believe.�

�� There was only one council mentioned in the Bible and it was made up of "the apostles and elders" (Acts 15:2 and 6) who "met to consider....."� Since we have no apostles today, all that is left are elders.� Elders are to have authority over their own congregation as its council.�

�� 1 Samuel 10:10-19 tells of the Israelites insisting on having an earthly king.� God said they had rejected him from being their king.� So, too, today we have appointed head shepherds and rejected Jesus from being our head shepherd.� They wanted a king they could see, not one they could not see.� Today, we want a shepherd we can see, not one we cannot see.� So we have our denominational bishops and presidents.

�� Oh, Jesus.� Forgive us for trying to improve on you.

Sidetracking our Purpose

�� "I Am Quitting My Church to Preach" appeared in SUNSET magazine years ago.� In it James L. Gordon wrote, "I find myself more interested in ideas than in institutions.� An idea always loses force as it becomes institutionalized.� The modern preacher is under pressure to show results in membership and money.� He is expected to build up the church.� The idea of building up humanity is always a secondary consideration.� To organize a strong social circle is more to the mind of the churchman than large congregations or inspirational services....

�� "So I want a pulpit unhampered by the machinery of modern ecclesiasticism.� I believe in organization but I also know that when truth is organized and institutionalized, it loses something of its original force and vitality." [8]

�� Many who have gone into the ministry have come back out of it disillusioned with the politics.� Basically all of them enter the ministry to serve and save the lost.� But they get caught up in having to answer to the larger organization.� He has to fall in line or jeopardize his job.

�� Organization leads to spiritual pride.� Organization leads to people lording it over the flock.� Organization leads to accusations of being "non-cooperative."� Organization leads to discharging ministers of the Word because they do not compete well enough with the organization down the street.� Organization leads to critical fire of newspapers, true seekers, and atheists.� Organization leads to scrambling for place and position.

�� In 1925, a grand effort was made to unite several denominations.� They included the Methodists, some Congregationalists, and part of the Presbyterians.� But they ended up with another denomination.� Although they called themselves the United Church ~ a worthy name ~ they immediately formed a hierarchy and headquarters.� They'd gone right back to what they'd separated from.� Why?� Because of over-organization.� Do people not feel they are religious unless they are organized?

�� We have become organization crazy.� We think organization is power.� We end up talking about "our" denomination, "our" world interests, "our church."� We have made a test of fellowship out of "our" church.� The only kind of power it engenders is individual power, and distraction from the power of Jesus and his gospel.�

�� When organization grew, its only logical outcome was a human head and headquarters, the papacy.� What became of the Holy Spirit?� The institutionalized church is the greatest enemy of true Christianity today.� We have come to trust the organization instead of Jesus Christ and his Word alone.

�� Organization results in jealousies, power plays, politics, wrath, strife, contention.� True, a great organization carries great prestige.� Does not such prestige come at the expense of the prestige of Jesus Christ?�

�� H. G. Wells said in his history of Europe, "The idea of stamping out all controversy and division, stamping out all thought, by imposing one dogmatic creed upon all believers, is an altogether autocratic idea, it is the idea of the single-handed man who feels that to work at all he must be free from opposition and criticism.

�� "The history of the Church under [Emperor Constantine's] influence now becomes, therefore, a history of the violent struggles that were bound to follow....From him the Church acquired the disposition to be authoritative and unquestioned, to develop a centralized organization and run parallel to the empire." [9]

�� Indeed, today, some denominational hierarchies have developed into an empire.� The work of the living Christ does not depend on any human organization.�

�� The greatest advances in Christianity are made on the local level with local decisions.� But often local outreach programs go unled because our leaders are busy with the greater organization, the denominational headquarters.� The Organization Spirit is crowding out the Holy Spirit.

�� Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18).� Not a head organization at some headquarters somewhere.� Not a head president or bishop or pope somewhere.� The only head over the local congregation is Jesus.

�� Some time ago, Episcopal church members including the chairman of the national commission on evangelism and several bishops wrote this letter to their headquarters:�

�� "The church to-day is incomparably rich in money, organization, influence, power, and yet it failed to produce anything like apostolic results.� For example, our communion, with its 135 bishops, more than 5000 priests and more than a million communicants, obtained a net gain last year of only 25,000 members, which means that with all our resources it took 50 persons to add one communicant."[10]�

�� That was 65 years ago.� What would the figures be like today?� Dare we say today it takes at least 200 people to save one soul?� Are we neglecting the salvation of souls so we may build up the organization?

�� Several years ago, a group of major denomination ministers published this plea:

�� "The Men's Church League is alarmed because one-third of all the Presbyterian, Northern Baptists and Methodist Episcopal churches had no converts last year ~ a total of 11,394 churches...J. Earle Edwards, a Baptist preacher, is reported to have said that the trouble is due to red tape, sectarian organization, theology, jealousy - in fact, to everything but Jesus Christ and His spirit.

�� "We recommend the abolition of sectarian organization, both in its competitive and monopolistic phases, and the return to the simple church of Christ according to the New Testament pattern; we recommend the cutting away of red tape and cumbersome machinery in order that there may be breathing room for the spirit and free use of initiative in going about the Father's business." [11]

�� When the church of the first century was solely congregational with its only ultimate head above the elders being Jesus Christ, it was unconquerable.� Rivers of early Christians' blood fertilized the fields white unto harvest with the seed, the Word of God.

�� Blessed Jesus, we have forgotten how lost we were in our sins, and we have forgotten the lost around us.� Please forgive us.

Prejudice

�� Everyone agrees that denominationalism is not preferred over unity.� James 2:9 says we are not to have respect of persons, and yet we do this with our denominationalism.� If division in the body of Christ is good, we should follow it to its logical conclusion and encourage each person to build a religion unto self and never assemble with others.

�� Paul told the church at Corinth with all their divisiveness that they were carnal (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:3-4).� Philippians 2:1-5 says we are to be "one in spirit and purpose.� Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.� Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."

�� The apostle Peter said we were to be all likeminded (1 Peter 3:8).� The brother of Jesus said we who murmur, complain and walk after our lusts show respect of persons for the sake of gaining the advantage (Jude 16).

�� Galatians 5:19-21 lists 15 sins including sexual immorality and witchcraft; yet over half refer to divisiveness:� Hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy.

�� James, another brother of Jesus, warned in 3:14-16, "But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.� such 'wisdom' does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil."

�� The great reformers who broke away from the Catholic Church had the right idea and were certainly blessed by God.� But they did not go far enough.� They eliminated things they disliked about the Catholic Church, and then kept the rest.�

�� Luther eliminated paying indulgences and having a separate priesthood, believing in the priesthood of all believers saved by grace.� That was good.� Calvin eliminated approval of the church for one's salvation, believing it to be a personal experience.� That was good.� Wesley eliminated formalism in favor of methodism.� That was good.� Knox eliminated papism in favor of presbyterianism.� That was good.� But none went all the way back.� That was not good.

�� John Godfrey Saxe explained eloquently what each great Reformer accomplished:

It was six men of Hindustan, to learning much inclined,

Who went to see the elephant, (Though all of them were blind)

That each by observation might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl,

"God bless me! but the elephant is very much like a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk cried, "Ho, What have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?� to me 'tis very clear

This wonder of an elephant is very like a spear.

The third approached the animals, and happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands, thus boldly up he spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the elephant is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee,

"What most this wondrous beast is like is mighty plain,"quoth he;

" 'Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

Fifth who chanced to touch the ear, said, "E'en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most; deny the fact who can.

This marvel of an elephant is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope,

Then seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the elephant is very like a rope."

And so these men of Hindustan disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was party in the right, and all were in the wrong.

So often in theologic wars the disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean

And prate about an elephant not one of them has seen! [12]

�� May the clergy of our land fall to their knees, ask God's forgiveness, then rise to resign from denominational positions in councils, synods and headquarters, and influence their congregation to function as an independent body led only by the New Testament.

�� Blessed Savior.� You looked at us in our sinfulness and saw some good in us.� Enough that was worth saving.� How unworthy we still are.� But we're trying.� Help us try.

Making Decisions for Us

�� Indeed, it seems a fairly reliable guess that 90% of all people have no theological idea why they belong to the denomination they do.� So why do they allow such division?

�� We allow it because regular people do not study the Word of God for themselves.� We - in our laziness - are willing to take the word of ministers who may or may not be defending their standing in their denominational organization.� And we allow it because we have closed minds to protect our egos.� We refuse to believe we may believe different from the Bible.

�� I shared the gospel message with one woman for nearly two years.� She was dying.� She admitted that where she went to church (a large and powerful denomination) it had always been just a social club with the preacher preaching philosophy.� She didn't even know there was an Old and New Testament in the Bible.� When I shared the gospel message with her right out of the Bible, she was almost persuaded until she consulted with her preacher.� He said she didn't have to do any of that.� She reasoned that, since he had a degree in religion, he must be right.� She went to her grave believing in this man who will himself be judged by God based on the very Bible he denied to her.�

�� In THE DILEMMAS OF JESUS James Black, Minister of the United Free Church in Edinburgh, Scotland, is reported in the book BE ONE, as having said this:

�� "So many of us do not trust Jesus for Himself, but we trust in what lesser authorities say about Him....We are cursed with experts and authorities.� It may be a church, or a book, or a creed, or a man - what does it matter?� It is always the same irreligious thing.� 'Authority' is always irreligious!

�� "....we quote an article in a creed....This is what the creed says, you poor mouse!� ...Or, we quote a church.� Here is the authority of the saints and fathers, the decrees of the Church....Surely you do not set your little mind up against that!

�� "....It is sheer mental ruin, especially in religion.� 'What think ye of Jesus?' - and you for yourself are as able to settle your personal relation to Him as any scholar that was ever born.� Jesus believed that the simplest soul could accept Him as fully as Lord and Master, and could do it, - nay, must do it - out of his own heart and mind.� Jesus is His own and only authority." [13]

�� Jesus never died to build any organization.� He died to save individuals who, as a result, gather together in a simply-organized commune of believers for encouragement.

�� H. G. Wells said, "It is difficult to read the surviving literature of the time without a strong sense of the dogmatism, the spites, rivalries, and pedantries of the men who tore Christianity to pieces for the sake of these theological refinements." [14]

�� Oh, blessed Jesus.� Forgive us.

Married to our Institution

�� There have been two groups of people within the church who have been most critical of our institutionalism.� The first have been those that organized religion often identified as "splinter groups," "off-shoots," or even "heretics."� The real intention of these groups are covered in the last chapter of this book.

�� The other group that has criticized our institutionalism are missionaries in foreign countries, isolated from most any kind of believer in Christ.� Most denominations would be surprised to know that the missionaries they sent out actually hob-nobbed with missionaries of other denominations.

�� What breaks down their artificial boundaries?� Their loneliness and craving for other Christian companionship.� These missionaries refuse to get involved in dogmatic disputes because all they want to do is convert the lost.� They don't talk about it with each other or with the new converts.� Thoughts of opinionated dogma leave their mind completely for more important business.

�� Furthermore, our denominational headquarters would be surprised to know that these missionaries are converting people, giving them the Bible, then staying out of their way while the local people launch out to convert still others.

�� Instead, our denominational headquarters tell us we must maintain our particular standard of dogmas at all costs.� They cannot tolerate untrained and uncontrolled new converts to propagate the gospel.�

�� Their attitude of "cannot allow" and "cannot tolerate" is obviously the attitude of a superior, a supervisor, one who sets himself up as a parent, a father, a papa, a pope.� The institutionalized church hierarchy has laid claim of lordship over our faith - The Faith - unwilling to relinquish it to Jesus. ��

Several years ago, missionary Roland Allen wrote THE SPONTANEOUS EXPANSION OF THE CHURCH for missionaries, but which has applications for every congregation.� In the chapter on "Fear for the Doctrine" note what Allen says:

�� "On what then do we rely for the exercise of this authority?� Without doubt we rely upon our prestige....When we say we must maintain our standard, we certainly mean that it is our standard and not their standard [or the Lord's]....

�� "....a standard of doctrine...maintained by an external authority as a code of laws can be enforced by a conquering government upon a subject people.� How do we attempt to maintain it?� First we make the preparation for baptism long and difficult by insisting upon each convert learning what is for very many of them difficult verbal lessons [from our creeds].� Multitudes of our converts are totally unfamiliar with the kind of abstract language....

�� "We train the teachers...in schools and theological colleges, so that they can understand our use of abstract terms and can learn at least verbally our doctrinal expressions....From amongst these teachers we select the men who repeat best...our point of view...then ordain them with great confidence that they will teach nothing but what they have learned from us.� And these men we put into positions of greater authority....

�� "The results...(1) Terrible sterility....We have taught them to depend upon us, rather than upon Christ....(2) The Doctrine has been maintained by external authority, but it has hampered the thought of the people...begin to feel this dimly and to resent it." [15]

�� From whence do the great heresies of the church arise?� Not from people out in the trenches trying to reach, teach, and convert people to Christ for their soul's salvation.� Not from the unordained, the officially unrecognized does it come.� Heresies arise from the educated and philosophical who would boast of their superior minds and superior grasp of things holy and religious.

�� In his chapter on organization Allen says:� "There is a horrible tendency for an organization to grow in importance till it overshadows the end of its existence, and begins to exist for itself....Our love of organization leads us to rely upon it....

��" Indeed, we modernists are mesmerized with organization.� We pride ourselves in our developmental and administrative skills.� But when it comes to spreading the Gospel, our love for organization drowns us.� For we are too preoccupied with material things.� As a result, we ultimately try to organize spiritual forces.

�� "Our organization immobilizes," Allen goes on.� "Great opportunities, widespread movements towards Christ, must be neglected rather than that these institutions should lack workers...The whole system of societies, boards, offices, accounts, contracts with [pastors], statistical returns, reports reeks of it." [16]

�� When church councils were instituted, the fundamental simplicities of proclaiming the gospel to the lost became slighted.�

�� Can we comprehend Paul being solemnly appointed archbishop of Europe?� How about Philip serving as parish priest of Macedonia.� Or perhaps Luke traveling up and down Italy to administer the sacraments.� Imagine the seven churches of Asia Minor being denied the sacraments because the Apostle John is sidetracked on the Isle Patmos.� Envision Peter sending urgent appeals to Jerusalem for a priest for Ephesus, or a bishop for Spain.� None of this is even hinted at in the Bible.� Yet we dare to try to improve on the Bible.

�� Can you imagine new converts being told there is a distant church government out there to which they could vote to send a representative to discuss something which they do not understand.� Can you conceive new converts being informed an ecclesiastic body exists somewhere out there on which they must rely for their beliefs?� Somewhere out there in church hierarchy "heaven?"

�� In his chapter on "Ecclesiastical Organization" Allen says:

�� "Like Nebuchadnezzar's image, [the church's] head was of gold, its belly of brass, and its feet part of iron and part of clay.� It stood upon feet of iron and clay, paid lay workers, and congregations which were not churches; its head was high uplifted, one solitary potentate, the bishop; and between these there was an utterly inadequate number of [clergy], quite unable to provide nourishment for the whole; but strong and exclusive as brass." [17]

Continue Next Page

Endnotes for This Page

[1].� The Holy Bible:� New International Version, International Bible Society, 1988.� [All Bible references from NIV unless otherwise noted.]

[2].� Wells, H. G., The Outline of History:� The Whole Story of Man, Vol. I, Book VI, Ch. 28, Garden City Books, Garden City, NY, Pg. 438-439.

[3].� Reasoner, Be One, pg. 264-265.

[4].� Luther, Martin

[5].� Wesley, John, Notes on the New Testament

[6].� Wells, H. G. The Outline of History�Vol I, Book VI, Part XXXI, Pg. 544-545.

[7].� Goldin, Hyman E., translator, Code of Jewish Law, Hebrew Publishing Co., N.Y., Vol. I, pg. 125-129.

[8].� Reasoner, N. J., Be One, N. D. Elliott, Printer, Salem, OR, 1928, (Restoration Reprint Library, College Press, Joplin, MO. December 1926,) pg. 252-253.

[9].� Wells, H. G., The Outline of History Book VI, Ch. 28, pg.438-439.

[10].� Reasoner, Be One, pg. 233.

[11]. Reasoner, Be One, pg. 233 and 236.

[12].� George, David L., The Family Book of Best Loved Poems, Hanover House, Garden City, NY, 1952, pg. 400-401

[13].� Reasoner, Be One, pg. 280.

[14]. Wells, H. G., The Outline of History, Book VI, Ch. 28, pg. 432.

[15].� Allen, Roland, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1962, pg. 43-48.

[16]. Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, pg. 98 and 106.

[17].� Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, pg. 124.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws