Housechurch

Good Organizations

Wayne — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:42:28 -0400

(Forgive my choice of taxonomies for this article. All of them are a bit of a stretch.)

Chuck Colson recently wrote an article about the Rockies and why their team has met with success of late. This got me to thinkin' 'bout what ingredients are necessary for an organization to truly be good.

1. They live Christian values, not just "good" values (as if "good" could possibly be defined sans Jehovah).

All of modern American society is geared toward denying this point. All over, people argue over the definition of "good". As "good" is properly defined relative to the Judge, this makes no sense but is the basis for relativism. Government and businesses both fail to live by this point, assuring their eventual failure through corruption.

2. Values matter, not just performance. In violation of the sinful utilitarian philosophy, the organization recognizes intangible contributors to the end result.

The Rockies' recent success is a good proof case against utilitarianism. Some companies are recognizing the futility of utilitarianism and are beginning to emphasize values, preferring to hire those who share the values of the corporate leadership. The bifactional* Party (Republicrats), the press, and much of the public all deny that value matter, and the Clintons are excellent examples of this fact. One Clinton was already elected, and we'll soon see the other one, yet their values are openly self-serving and evil.

*[I give Vox credit for the "bifactional" term.]

3. It's not centered on a single man (Jesus notwithstanding, of course).

Too many churches, televangelists, ministries, and even revival movements fail to learn this crucial lesson. When centered on one man (a merely mortal one at that), it very often fails to outlive him. Worse, that one man can so very easily become corrupt and self-serving.

4. The organization is not democratic. The masses don't vote.

Violating this principle, allowing the masses to exert their will, necessarily leads to mob rule. Few organizations are so stupid as to be democratic. For the record, the Founding Fathers also knew this to be true and thus created a Republic, spreading democracy as thinly as possible and not vesting much power in any one group--and then warned us of its dangers and what must be done to avoid them. Failing to heed their warnings, we've since lost sight of this as our government openly panders to the lower common denominator. Notice, for example, that Gore won the 2000 popular vote.

5. Like hires like, inviting only those who already share their values.

Ballot access more or less restricts candidates to the bifactional Republicrats. This Party limits its candidates to those who espouse their values. This all but guarantees politicians who live for power not principle. Likewise, managers hire employees like them. Upper and middle management promote those like themselves (ref.), perpetuating their sins or, rarely, virtues.

Putting it all together.

I think all of these ingredients are necessary for an organization to have a shot at true success (defined in Godly terms at the very least). I'm sure there are more pieces to this puzzle, so I may be adding to this periodically. Perhaps it can grow into a kind of checklist for organizations to use in determining their chances for long-term success.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/766

Housechurch

Wayne — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:34:09 -0400

Housechurch

After the resurrection of our Lord ישוע (Jesus) HaMashiach (Jesus the Messiah), Messianic Jews met in each others' homes regularly and often to worship Him. While they still attended their local synagogue and trekked to the Temple per Torah, they also met in their homes to celebrate the Messiah--something that was not allowed by the Jewish leadership of the day. Such housechurches were common then and have been since then.

In a housechurch, there is no money collected, no salaries paid, and nothing spent on facilities and such. The time is spent worshiping, learning, and providing ministry to others. The Last Supper (a Passover Seder) is often remembered by way of communion (the Eucharist) in our homes. Healings sometimes take place. Prayer fills these homes during the gathering and always. Songs are often sung, and the Bible is always opened, preached, and taught.

We encourage all to be a part of (or lead) a housechurch, for there is often greater ministry in these than in the synagogue or "traditional" congregation. We also encourage you to be a part of a "traditional" chuch as well, to teach them about housechurches, and to serve the Body of Christ. Even if you attend no other housechurch, lead one in your own home with your family.

Our family hosts a housechurch in our home on Sabbath with an emphasis on the Word. Our expository teaching also features contextually topical exploration, and it is covered liberally in prayer. If you're interested in trying our housechurch, please contact wayne [at] tuscanycircle [dot] net (Wayne).

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/620

We'd like to find a good church...

Wayne — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:04:07 -0500

How hard is it to find a good church today? Are we asking for too much?

Not hostile to homeschoolers;
Not hostile to God's Law;
Doesn't practice legalism and other heresies;
Doesn't spend a fortune on itself.

We'd like to find a good church, but we'd settle for one that simply didn't serve evil in significant ways. We'd like to find one:

Structured to embrace homeschooling philosophies of parent-led education, family togetherness, non-age-graduated segregation, etc.;
Embracing all of God's Word, not just the New Testament;
No legalism or other major heresies practiced or preached;
Modest facilities, or better yet, no facilities or staff (i.e., housechurch).

We'd like to find one that didn't believe immersion baptism was saving--or anything more than ceremonially symbolic, just as the [church-rejected] mikvah was for centuries before. We'd like to find one that didn't believe "tongues" (what's called a "prayer language") was the only valid evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, despite what the Word clearly says (and despite the fact that a "prayer language" isn't even Biblical). We'd like to find one that didn't ban dancing in contrast to Biblical commands, or alcoholic consumption in moderation (even going to the ridiculous extreme of claiming Biblical alcohol had no alcohol). We'd like to find one that properly understood that Biblical tithing cannot be practiced today. Tithes are commanded to not be money, but animals and crops, and are part of the economic system of the tribes (namely, to provide for the Levites), and must be delivered at the Temple. Today's contributions are not tithes, but willful, cheerful donations; and you don't "owe" 10%, but the Lord owns 100% of everything anyway. Give only cheerfully, not from obligation and church-induced guilt. We'd like to find a church that didn't implicitly "require" weekly attendance, as if these were enough to be judged Christian. These are all very common legalisms practiced by much of the church today. Looking at formal, published denominational doctrines, all known [to me] denominations are heretical, just based on these few legalistic heresies stated here.

Beyond this, though, we'd like to find a church that embraced all of God's Word, not just the New Testament. So much has been preached on grace that a strawman has been built, named the Law, and torn down time and again. The Law was never a formula for achieving salvation--the Bible never even suggests this. The Law is for our protection and guidance. It's for our safety. If we follow it, we do so willingly and cheerfully, knowing our Father wants only the best for us (not from us). In fact, there are no major doctrines introduced in the New Testament (other than the rapture--and it can be argued it's only a minor doctrine) that aren't already taught more pervasively in the "Old" Testament. With the "Old", the New doesn't even make any sense. We'd like to find a church that didn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

We'd like to find a church that actively studied and sought out God's will in the Word. We'd like to find one with the intellectual capacity to discover, learn, and then teach Biblical doctrine on levels deeper than the most superficial. We'd like to find a church that actively discipled believers instead of merely "saving" them. We'd like to find a church where there was a place for maturing believers, those seeking Biblical perfection (not sinlessness, as most incorrectly believe, but maturity and completeness, as commanded in Matthew 5:48). We'd like to find a church that wasn't collectively so immature as to not even get the basics of the faith correct (see rant on legalism above).

We'd like to find a church that promoted personal and corporate holiness, but didn't "require" it, a la legalism. We'd like to find one actively fasting, praying, studying, remaining silent and listening, and purposely responding to the Lord's still-spoken will. We'd like to find one that allowed for the use of the gifts of the Spirit, but didn't use them to feel superior or make their use the point of the faith. We'd like to find a church whose leadership didn't implicitly demand clergy-worship. We'd like to find a church whose purpose is to nurture and disciple the believers so they may, in turn, minister to the lost and the hurting--where believers are all ordained as clergy and leaders (priesthood of all believers) and equipped accordingly. We'd like to find a church where the 80/20 rule was really 100/100.

We'd like to find a church that correctly recognized Israel as God's prophetic timepiece, so to speak. We'd like a church that supported God's chosen people and nation, that recognized all Christian believers as being grafted into the Jewish roots, that understood roughly the same percentage of Jews as Gentiles are saved, that Jerusalem is the center of the world, that the Law has not passed away. We'd like a church that correctly believes premillennialism and Israel's Biblical role therein.

We'd like to find a good church. Until then, we'll lead one of our own.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/283

Bubbleheaded Christians

Wayne — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:47:58 -0500

'Tis common to hear warnings from Christians about having a "head knowledge" of the Lord, but not having Him firmly implanted in the heart. In other words, some have great intellectual knowledge of the Lord, His Word, and His doctrine, but don't actually experience a life in communion--an experiential knowledge, if you will. In my experience, this is true: there are some who are all intellect and no experience and personal growth resulting from that intellect.

On the other hand, this warning seems to have been heeded too much in Christian circles today. Today, far too many believers (the vast majority, in my experience) have plenty of heart-knowledge and practically no intellectual understanding of their Lord, bubbleheads. How can one consider himself a mature believer if he cannot defend his faith logically, if he cannot properly identify enemies of the faith, if he cannot even reconcile the Genesis account of creation and scientific observation? If he cannot even address some of the most basic tenets of doctrine, why should anyone turn to him for leadership, discipleship, or even for a pointer toward salvation? He is a bubbleheaded Christian.

Bubbleheads in church

Thanks to my friend, "C", I was able to collect my thoughts on this matter. The discussion actually centered around housechurches, large churches, and their small groups. So many of these organizations go doctrinally astray because they cannot find leadership with even a basic understanding of Biblical doctrine. Their emotional experience in church may be wonderful--as it should be--but their heads are nearly empty, despite the awesome gift of intellect they've been given. The church once saw itself as a defender of doctrine. With Satanic forces in control of many of the mainstream denominations (esp. the seminaries), and with bubbleheads in charge of many of the nondenominational churches, there are very few defenders of the faith remaining.

Are you a bubbleheaded Christian, or do you think you're mature in the faith? Do you experience the Lord for real? Do you feel His Presence? Do you hear Him? Do you obey? Without this experiential knowledge, your faith is rather empty. However, without an intellectual knowledge as well, your faith is shallow. If you wish to remain shallow in your faith (despite what the Word commands), that's between you and the Judge; but don't you dare step up to leadership as if your faith weren't infantile, thereby costing others eternally by your poor example and poorer guidance.

Basics

Here are some examples of doctrinal ducks you should already have lined up--and these are just the basics:

God's Triune nature (and ישוע (Jesus)'s dual nature therein).
Our triune nature (and our triune soul therein).
Creation.
The Bible's authority and inerrancy.
Biblical hermeneutics (interpretation).
The Bible and science, history, psychology, etc.
Original sin.
The process and nature of salvation.
Law and grace.
Prophecy and Israel.
The afterlife: Sheol, Paradise, heaven, hell, Lake of Fire, etc.
Eschatology (end-times).
Spiritual disciplines.
How to hear the Lord.

If you don't have a decent understanding of at least these (and this list is by no means exhaustive, even for the basics), then start cracking the Book. Dig in. Study. Be discipled or mentored. Seek and you will find.

Step Up

The church needs mature believers. The unsaved as well as the saved need mature leaders to disciple them. There are so few today. The pendulum has swung from the intellectual of old to the experiential today, yet both are necessary for any semblance of spiritual maturity. Don't be a bubbleheaded Christian; be a mature one.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/226