NOT A SIN?

My most recent blogpost received a comment that asked, “So, is it ok to be gay and Christian?”

I think that’s a very good question. I will do my best to provide an answer.

First of all, I’ve been studying this topic for over a year now. It’s something I’ve held off writing about until I was quite certain I could speak about it with integrity.

If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time you already know that I’m no stranger to controversy. But this topic, unlike any other, is more volatile than anything I’ve ever written about before.

I’ve lost friends and relationships with other Christians over issues like hierarchy in the Church, the Priesthood of All Believers, Christian Non-Violence and the different views of Hell, to name a few.

But taking a position on the issue of Homosexuality has the potential to damage many relationships that I hold most dear, including members of our family.

At one point I nearly backed off completely. But then I felt I heard the Holy Spirit remind me that my calling is not to minimize my own suffering but to help alleviate the suffering of others.

So, here we go.

At one time I took the words of Paul at face value, especially when it came to verses where he forbids a woman to teach, or when he condemns homosexual activity.

But then something happened. First, my friend Jon Zens wrote a book called “What’s With Paul and Women?” which went directly to those passages where it appeared that Paul was clearly against women teaching men, or even speaking out loud in the assembly, and exposed our bad English translations, our lack of understanding the culture of that day, and years of bias against the subject matter.

What emerged was a better understanding of what Paul was actually saying, and better yet, WHY he was saying it.

For me, the topic of homosexuality has taken a similar path. As I’ve gone back to re-examine those passages where Paul certainly appears to condemn homosexuality I’ve begun to notice almost exactly the same pattern as what emerged in the issue of women in church leadership: The Greek words usually translated by our modern Bibles as “Homosexuals” don’t actually correlate to what we would call homosexuality today; There is a cultural phenomenon at work that most never incorporate; and there is a bias against homosexuality that is quite apparent once you consider all the perspectives that have been intentionally silenced over the years.

I’ll do my best to unpack all of that for you in the next few blog articles.

For the record: I am not gay. No one in my immediate family is gay. I am not taking a stand against the traditional view of homosexuality based on any emotional imperative or personal agenda.

On the contrary, I am laying my head on this chopping block because I believe that the Christian church has used these few verses as a weapon to marginalize and condemn an entire group of people who should be welcomed into the Body of Christ as brothers and sisters.

I know I will take the hit for saying this. I’m saying it anyway. And I hope to back it up with some very solid Biblical exegesis and relevant insight.

Back to our friend’s question: “So, is it ok to be gay and Christian?”

I would say that, if you define being “gay” as having a same-sex attraction [and only an attraction, not moving further into lust or fornication], then yes, it is ok to be a Christian who is attracted to someone of the same sex.

How can I say this?

Because being attracted to someone, in itself, isn’t a sin. The Bible never suggests anything otherwise.

I know that some take the words of Jesus about “looking at a woman to lust after her” as being equal to adultery, but what Jesus was referring to was exactly what he said: lustful thoughts, not default attractions, are equal to adultery. We’ve not committed the sin when we simply experience an attraction to another person. We sin when we allow our lusts to take over and our thoughts become carnal and/or we act on those lustful desires and physically engage in fornication.

But what about those verses you mentioned where Paul seems to very clearly condemn homosexuals?

Let’s take a look at those now.

Starting with Roman chapter 1, let’s look at what Paul has to say:

 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper…” [Romans 1:24-28]

Honestly, I don’t believe there is any reason to believe that what Paul is describing here is analogous to what we would refer to as homosexuality today.

There are plenty of others who agree with me on this. For example, first century Christian,  Aristides and second century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr.

Aristides, who lived just 70 years after the Apostle Paul, taught that the issue Paul was addressing in Romans 1 was idolatry and sexual worship of false gods. In the second century, Justin Martyr also affirmed this interpretation of the passage.

Those aren’t exactly “liberal” Christian sources. These brothers aren’t alone, either. People like Bible Commentary expert Matthew Henry, Scottish evangelist Robert Haldane, and orthodox Calvinist, Charles Hodge also agree that what Paul is referring to in Romans 1 is a condemnation of pagan sexual temple practices of prostitution.

See for yourself:

"In Isaiah's time it (idolatry) abounded, witness the abominable idolatries of Ahaz (which some think are particularly referred to here - Isaiah 57) and of Manasseh. They were dotingly fond of their idols, were inflamed with them, as those that burn in unlawful unnatural lusts [Romans 1:27]. They were mad upon their idols [Jeremiah 50:38]. They inflamed themselves with them by their violent passions in the worship of them, as those of Baal's prophets that leaped upon the altar, and cut themselves [1 Kings 18:26,28]. Justly therefore were they given up to their own hearts' lusts.” – Matthew Henry [From Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah 57]

“The reasons why Paul refers in the first instance to the sins of uncleanness, in illustration and proof of the degradation of the heathen, probably were, that those sins are always intimately connected with idolatry, forming at times even a part of the service rendered to the false gods." – Charles Hodge [From “A Commentary on Romans”, by Charles Hodge, 1983 reprint (first published in 1835), Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA, p. 41.] 

"The Apostle having awfully depicted the magnitude of Pagan wickedness, and having shown that their ungodliness in abandoning the worship of the true God was the reason why they had been abandoned to their lusts, here descends into particulars, for the purpose of showing to what horrible excesses God had permitted them to proceed.

"This was necessary, to prove how odious in the sight of God is the crime of idolatry. Its recompense was this fearful abandonment. It was also necessary, in order to give a just idea of human corruption, as evinced in its monstrous enormities when allowed to take its course, and also in order to exhibit to believers a living proof of the depth of the evil from which God had delivered them; and, finally, to prove the falsity of the Pagan religion since, so far from preventing such excesses, it even incited and conducted men to their commission." – Robert Haldane [From “Commentary on Romans” by Robert Haldane, 1835.]

If you doubt this assessment, I invite you to go back and to re-read Romans chapter one, from the beginning. What you’ll observe is a progression in Paul’s argument that begins with a condemnation of pagan idol worship and ends with a description of what that worship involves and how God punishes those who engage in the practice.

So, as I began to look at this passage again, I started to wonder if what Paul was focused on here was anything at all like what we would refer to as homosexuality today.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6. This is where things get a lot more interesting.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.”  [1 Cor. 6:9, ESV]

This seems pretty much a slam-dunk, doesn’t it? How can we argue with this? Well, once you start to examine the Greek you’ll begin to see a few problems.

First, the word translated here as “homosexuals” is from the Greek word "arseno-koitai". This is a word that most NT scholars would say Paul invented. In other words, we don’t exactly know what it means because it’s a compound word made out of two different Greek words which are forced together. Paul never explains or defines this word for us. It literally means “Man” and “To Bed” which our  modern English NT translators have wrongly rendered as “homosexuals”.

That term first appeared in our modern English translations in the Amplified Bible back in 1958.

Bibles translated earlier than 1958 render the verse like this:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (arsenokoites)" [1 Cor 6:9, KJV]

As you can see above, the King James Version did not contain the word “homosexuals”. Only later translations and editions changed the word to “homosexuals”

Keep in mind that this shift in the translation came not from better, more convincing scholarship, but from cultural shifts within the Christian church.

Let’s look at these two words in a little more detail.

The Greek word “malakoi”, which is the plural of malakos, and the Greek word “arseno-koitai” are both used in 1 Cor 6:9.

First we’ll examine the word “Arseno-koitai”. As we said, many New Testament scholars have argued that Paul invented the compound word himself, since it cannot be found in any other writings of the time to refer to same-sex attraction or relationships.

There were over a dozen other words which Paul could have used if what he wanted to refer to was your everyday, ordinary homosexuality. I won’t go into the list of words, but there are plenty of other terms for same-sex intercourse in the Greek language that Paul left out of his epistle.

Why did he do that? We don’t know. But for whatever reason, Paul instead, chose to use an unfamiliar compound word  – "arseno-koitai" – which is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual.

“Arseno-koitai” is used only once more in the Bible, [1 Timothy 1:10], and Paul never defines its meaning for us.

Are you ready for a big surprise? This next detail might just resolve the mystery of Paul’s invented word for us.

There was a very well-respected Jewish teacher who lived during the lifetime of both Jesus and Paul the Apostle. His name was Philo.  He was one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century.

It’s no secret that Paul was highly educated as a Pharisee under Gamaliel. We know because of the works he quoted that Paul also read other philosophers and thinkers of his day. He most certainly would have been well-versed with someone like Philo who, no doubt, held great influence over the Pharisees and Rabbis living in first century Jerusalem.

Here’s what’s most fascinating about Philo. In his commentary on Leviticus 18:22, he argues that what Moses was condemning was shrine prostitution, and he specifically used the term “arseno-koitai”.

Wait. What?

That’s right. It seems that Paul did not invent this compound word. Philo did. And when Philo used the term, he used it to refer to the practice of pagan temple prostitution.

Now, let’s look at the other word that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 6, “Malakoi”.

The word “malakoi” occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing.Jesus never used the word in reference to homosexuality.

The best translation of the word into English is “effeminate”, not “homosexual”.

 In the first century, this term is normally used as an epithet against heterosexual men. As in, “You punch like a girl” or “Don’t cry like a girl”.  The word is never used to refer to someone who is homosexual. It is always used to describe a heterosexual male whose behavior is more feminine, or soft, than male.

 Plato, for example, in his “Republic”, wrote famously that too much music made a man soft [malakoi], and feeble; unfit for battle. He did not argue that it made him a homosexual.

 Aristotle also warned about the dangers of men becoming too soft [malakoi] by over-indulging in pleasures rather than balancing out their lives with acts of physical and mental discipline. Again, he was also not saying that lack of exercise or hard work might make someone turn gay.

Even Josephus, the first century Jewish historian [and contemporary of Jesus and Paul] used the term “malakos” to describe men who were weak and soft through lack of courage in battle. [See “Wars of The Jews” ,7:338; and “Antiquities of The Jews”, 5:246; 10:194.]

Want to know what’ even more interesting about how first century people understood this term? It turns out that “malakoi” was most often used in reference to men who shaved daily and had no beards. These were often ridiculed and accused of wanting to look like women with clean-shaven faces.

If this is what Paul had in mind in 1 Cor. 6:9, then the reference is more about cultural norms of the day – which is similar to what Paul writes about when he condemns short hair on women and long hair on men and calls this “unnatural” or “against nature”.

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” [1 Cor. 11:14-16]

Is a man with a clean-shaven face an abomination before God? Is he going against his own nature? Or is this an example of First Century cultural norms being equated with God’s eternal purpose?

I think these are worthwhile questions to explore. I also think that the conclusions that many Christians have accepted today are seriously lacking in the necessary study and critical thinking required to justify many of our attitudes towards those with same-sex attractions.

If this were a court of law, I believe that the evidence above is certainly enough to warrant a reasonable doubt about the true meaning of these passages we often use to condemn people who are not like us.

As I said before, I think this topic is very similar to doctrines like Hell and Women in Ministry. At one time you and I might have read the scriptures and said, “It says right here…” without knowing that what we were reading was:

A) Not exactly what was said in the actual Greek

B) Lacking historical background information regarding the culture of those people and

C) Unduly influenced by NT translators who had a bias towards the subject matter

In conclusion, here’s what I’m saying – People who experience a same-sex attraction are not condemned by God. Many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They should be embraced and welcome into the Body of Christ, regardless of who they feel any attraction to. In fact, their attraction to Christ as Lord and Savior is the only one we should take into consideration at all.

Hopefully, we could all agree that as ambassadors of Christ we need to love homosexuals and share the love of Jesus with them rather than attack and condemn them.

Maybe you don’t agree? I don’t know. But for me the Christian’s job is to share and show the love of Jesus to everyone – regardless of their struggle with sin – and allow the Holy Spirit to A) Convict people of their sins and B) Transform them into the image of Christ. Neither of those is the job of the Christian, and therefore, not my job either.

This means that we shouldn’t expect a homosexual [or an alcoholic, or a drug addict, etc.] to “stop sinning” before we agree to fellowship with them, or befriend them, or welcome them into the Body of Christ.

For me, the alcoholic metaphor is an apt one. Most Christians would agree that someone who is an alcoholic will always be an alcoholic. We wouldn’t expect them to stop being an alcoholic, or even to stop thinking about taking a drink, before we welcomed them into the Body of Christ. In fact, we might agree that being in fellowship with other Christians might actually help this person to overcome their addictions and to receive the grace and mercy of God as they seek to follow Jesus.

I would trade the term “alcoholic” for “homosexual” in that paragraph above without any reservation.

HOWEVER: That doesn't mean that I view homosexuality as a sin. It simply means that I would encourage Christians to extend the same grace to those who are gay as they do to those who might struggle with addictions.

Thanks for taking the time to wrestle through this with me.

Peace,

Keith
**
READ MORE?
*ROMANS RE-EXAMINED
*THE NEW SAMARITANS
*OUR MISSED OPPORTUNITY
*BLESSED ARE THE EUNUCHS
*A LOVE THAT'S BETTER THAN SEX

Is It Really All About Jesus?

THE BLOGALOGUE SERIES: "Encountering Jesus: Inside and Outside the Meeting"

Is It Really All About Jesus?

For me, the essence of an Organic Church is centered around Jesus. Everything we do should be designed to help us hear Him, experience Him, worship Him, love Him, serve Him, and draw nearer to Him. Anything that prevents that from happening should be eliminated from our lives, and from our time together as a Body.

If I could re-name the movement, I’d call it “Jesus Ekklesia” because, for me, that’s closer to what it’s all about: It’s for Jesus, by Jesus and of Jesus. With Jesus at the Center, Jesus at the top, and Jesus surrounding us, the Ekklesia is a Jesus-centric organism that won’t operate properly apart from Jesus.

In fact, the Church itself is nothing apart from Christ. The Apostle Paul calls it a Profound Mystery. Christ and the Church are One – like a living person who has a head and a body and organs that all work together to sustain life. We are in Christ and He is in us, and we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit where Christ lives, and He is the One in whom we live and move and have our being. So, we are in Christ and He is in us, and we are in the Father.

Apart from Jesus we can do nothing. Yet, if we remain in Him and He remains in us then we will bear much fruit.

Is it possible to have a meeting without Jesus? Unfortunately, yes. It’s also possible to have a wonderful meeting “about Jesus” where people get together to sing about Him, talk about Him and study Him – much in the same way a group of people might study any other topic of discussion.

But rather than have a meeting “about Jesus”, or a meeting “without Jesus”, our aim and purpose should always be to have a meeting “WITH Jesus.” He is the One we want to hear from. He is the One we want to touch, and to see and to experience.

Keep in mind, it’s possible to know stuff about someone without actually knowing the person. For example, I could know all sorts of trivia about Kobe Bryant, but if he walked in the room he wouldn’t say, “Hello Keith!” because I don’t actually know Kobe Bryant. I only know stuff about him.

The same is true for Christianity. We can know lots of stuff about Jesus, but that does not mean that we actually know Jesus in an intimate, relational way.

But how do we do that? How do we take hold of Christ – or allow Him to take hold of us?

I mean, if I’m not connecting with the actual Jesus in my private life, then I’m certainly not going to be able to connect with Him in a room full of people.

And, of course, if I’m in a room full of people who are also not in connection with the actual person of Jesus, then even if I am connected to Him, their limited connection to Him will probably make it impossible for all of us to encounter Him together.

How do we connect with Jesus as individuals? How do individual Christians encounter Jesus when they come together as a Church?

Those are the big questions, aren’t they?

I’ll do my best to answer both of those questions.

INDIVIDUAL CONNECTIONS TO CHRIST.

One of the most important things Jesus ever said about the Christian life was this: “Abide in me and I will abide in you. Apart from me you can do nothing.”

So, our individual connection to Jesus begins with living in Him. Not just placing our faith in Him, or trusting in Him for salvation, but actually living and breathing in Christ daily.

Or, to put it another way, the Christian life is about allowing Jesus to come and live and breathe in you every moment of every day.

Does that sound like a paradox? Good.

Imagine an empty water bottle with the lid screwed on tight. It’s full of air. Now throw it into the ocean. It’s surrounded by water, but on the inside it’s still empty and dry. That’s sort of like what it can be like for Christians who find themselves surrounded by Christian “things” and ideas, or even in a gathering of other Christians, but on the inside they are still empty and dry.

Even if you were to submerge that bottle deep into the center of the ocean, it would be wet on the outside, but dry on the inside. What needs to happen is for the bottle to be opened up so that the ocean can come flooding inside.

Jesus is the Ocean. We are the bottle. We can get close to Him and still not let Him inside. Total surrender is required for transformation to begin.

And I say, “to begin” because this is a process not a onetime event.

We allow the process to begin when we surrender our lives to Jesus, die to everything that is our self, and open our hearts up to receive His life, and His heart, and His presence.

We do not ask Jesus into our life, which is empty and dry and weak, but instead we respond to Jesus as He invites us into His life which is pure and eternal and abundant.

The Christian life is cultivated and nurtured and celebrated daily. We spend time with Jesus. We talk to Him the way we talk to our closest friend. We ask Him daily for help as we put His words into practice. We lean on Him for wisdom. We turn to Him for comfort. We look to Him for everything.

Keep in mind that practicing the presence of God like this will likely impact your behavior. It will facilitate the transformational power of the Holy Spirit as you open yourself up more and more to His command and control.

Any Christian who is consumed by this sort of attitude and activity can’t help but experience more of Jesus in their daily life. Now just imagine what would happen if a dozen or so other Christians who were also practicing this sort of faith were to get together for a meeting with Jesus as their functional head?

That’s what Organic Church is all about.

CORPORATE CONNECTIONS TO CHRIST.

When followers of Jesus are accustomed to encountering Jesus like this seven days a week, it’s nothing out of the ordinary to put something very similar into practice when they gather with others who are familiar with the concept.

The New Testament describes for us in some detail what a gathering of the Body of Christ should look like. In 1 Corinthians 12 through 14, Paul talks about the Church using the metaphor of a body where the head (which is Christ) controls every member of his body (the members of the church) as they operate together in ways that are various but necessary to the overall health of the entire organism.

This means that a church is really only “the Body of Christ” if it is submitted fully to the Head. If any church is not operating so that Christ alone is the functional leader – and everyone in the church is operating in their gifting as directed by the Holy Spirit – then that church is not actually behaving like a Body. It might be acting like a corporate entity, a 501(c)3, a business, or a bible study, but it’s not a Body.

When a group of practicing Christian disciples gather together under Christ in order to see Him and hear Him and encounter Him, the chances of doing so increase exponentially.

Obviously, if Christians are not practicing a daily surrender to Christ in their personal lives, and if they are not gathering with other Christians who are encountering Jesus in this way, and if when they gather together they don’t all work together to experience Jesus in their midst as their functional head…then there’s a very, very good chance that they won’t.

Having said that, let me admit something here: It doesn’t always come together for us either.

Sometimes we realize that we’ve not been walking as close to Jesus as we should. Sometimes we get together and we discover that most of us have neglected to seek His face during the week – hey, it happens. We’re all human. We get distracted. We get busy. We fall back into old habits and formulas.

At other times we find that one person in the group isn’t as focused on seeking Him as the rest of us are. In those cases we have grace. We wait for them. We ask how they’re doing. We minister to them in love.

We don’t compare ourselves to them as if we are more holy than they are. Mostly because we remember that we ourselves are prone to the same failures and weaknesses.

Still at other times we can all be in the right place at the right time and with the same intention and yet we don’t experience the power and presence of Jesus the way we hoped we might.

Again, that’s ok. Our faith isn’t in an experience. Our faith and our hope is in a person. We trust Him and we wait for Him. If He decides to move among us, then we rejoice and we receive. If He decides to remain silent, then we continue to wait on Him.

I think sometimes Jesus changes things up simply to keep us from relying on formulas. People love formulas. But when we have a formula we don’t need God.

Church isn’t about a formula, it is (once again) about a person. Jesus is a person and so we learn to accommodate Him and to defer to Him and to relate to Him as a person, not as a formula.

A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

A few weeks ago our little group experienced the Headship of Christ and it was really wonderful.

After our singing time, one of our sisters shared about a message she had seen on someone’s t-shirt at the grocery store the previous week. It said “Live what you love” and that little phrase stuck with her all week. She began to meditate on how we should live our lives for Jesus and follow Him because He is the One we love.

After that, another sister shared two verses from the New Testament about love and talked about how the Lord had revealed more of His love to her that week.

Then I jumped in because that morning I had been reading through 1 John which is all about love and I read a few specific verses from that book and shared my perspective on how important it is that we learn to love one another.

Then one of our brothers shared what God had been showing him last week as he read through the book of Hosea. After that another brother shared what God had been showing him as he was reading a book about the prophet Hosea, which dove-tailed beautifully into what everyone else was already sharing.

We ended by praying for one of our other sisters who shared a little from her heart about needing to be reminded of the love of God for her – which is what we had all been talking about all morning long anyway!

As we laid hands on her, and read scriptures over her, and even sang songs over her of God’s amazing and astounding love for her, everyone was edified and blessed and touched by the Lord’s tender presence with us.

That was an incredible morning with the saints! And I wish I could tell you that it happens like that every single week, but it doesn’t.

The good news is that it’s starting to happen more and more often as we all begin to catch a vision for what the Lord intends for us as individuals and as a corporate Body of believers.

-kg

**

NOTE: This blog is part of a Blogalogue Series of posts from Neil Cole, Richard Jacobson, Dan Herford, Jon Zens and myself.

The Topic: Encountering Jesus: Inside and Outside the Church

The Schedule:

Richard Jacobson: Week of Feb. 9

Keith Giles: Week of Feb. 16

Dan Herford: Week of Feb 23

Neil Cole: Week of March 2

Jon Zens: Week of March 9

Video Skype Roundtable discussion: Saturday March 14 or Sunday March 15

Video Round Table: Who Decides in Organic Church?

Neil Cole, Jon Zens, Richard Jacobson, Dan Herford and Keith Giles share their thoughts about how decisions are made in Organic Church community.

This conversation rounds out the "blogalogue" series of posts on this same topic.

Enjoy!

Making Decisions In An Organic Church

One of my favorite memories from the early days of our house church was when we asked the children to lead our meeting. We told them in advance so they’d have time to prepare for this special day. We all anticipated this special morning together for several weeks, and then finally the day arrived.

I’ll never forget, after our usual breakfast and fellowship time, we all moved into the den for our share time. The kids all sat together and we waited to see what they would do.

Then one of them said, "Ok, does anyone have something to share with the group today?"

At first it threw us off a little, and then someone laughed out loud at the irony of it all as we realized what was happening: We had modelled the open meeting so well that their “leadership” of our meeting looked exactly the same! It wasn’t about who was leading. It was only about Jesus and what He was doing in our Body that morning.

As I sit down to write my installment of the “Why Churches Don’t Need Senior Pastors” blog series, I can’t help but recall that special morning when the kids taught us an important lesson – and it was the same lesson we had already taught them – Jesus is our only Head.

Some have suggested – even within the House Church Movement – that human leaders (spiritual parents, elders, pastors, etc.) are necessary for a “healthy” organic church to flourish. I don’t disagree in theory – but in practice I think it matters a whole lot what those “leaders” do or do not do, if we are going to truly experience the Headship of Christ in our midst.

Leadership is a spiritual gift. It’s right there in the New Testament alongside tongues, healing, miracles, teaching, etc. No doubt about that. And, yes, God does provide some who serve as “Pastors” (plural) in the Church.

But what a leader does – or does not – do in the gathering and among the members of the Body makes all the difference in the world.

Some things a leader, pastor, elder might do in the gathering are:

*Gently nudge the talkers to wait for the shy ones

*Gently nudge the shy ones to share what God has place on their hearts

*Initiate prayer for someone who is obviously in need or hurting

*Prayerfully remind the church family why we are here

*Point everyone back to Jesus

Here are some things a leader, pastor, elder should not do in the gathering:

*Tell people what to do

*Dominate the conversation

*Establish the order of service

*Get in the way of the Holy Spirit

*Attempt to create an environment that caters to their own personal bias

If I had to write a hundred page book about how to lead an open meeting in an Organic Church, it would contain 99 pages of “Things Not To Do” and only about a page of what you should be doing.

Why? Because the more we do, the less room we allow for Jesus to move and work in our midst.

But this blog series is all about answering the question: “Who Makes Decisions In An Organic Church?”, especially if there are no “Senior Pastors” around who can just tell us what to do.

Here’s the short answer: “Ask Jesus”.

The longer answer would contain a few suggestions about how to facilitate that in the gathering, but essentially you, as a church family, would take the time to pray together and wait on the Lord and see where and how He is leading you to act or move.

It would be faster to simply elect someone to make all those decisions for you. Obviously. But do you want expedience and efficiency, or do you want accuracy and obedience to Christ?

If your desire is to hear from the Lord, and if your church family really wants to experience Christ at the Head of the Body, then together as a Body you need to stop and listen to the Head, who is Christ. It’s really that simple.

There’s an African proverb that says: “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to travel far, go together.”

I would urge you, as a brother in Christ, not to go quickly, but to go together and to seek the Lord as a Church Family.

Does it work? Yes! It does work. It has worked several times in our own house church family, and it has worked spectacularly for others as well.

For example, one young couple who we know started an organic church recently after visiting with us only a few times. After their group had been together a few months, someone donated a large sum of money to them. Seeing as Organic Churches don’t need money to operate, they were unsure of what to do with the money. So, they came together and prayed and asked Jesus what they should do. Here’s what happened next:

“We bowed our heads and a few different people prayed aloud for wisdom and discernment for all of us to come to an agreement on what to do. After a long period of silence, we asked if the Spirit had put any specific direction on anyone’s heart. One woman spoke up and said, “I kept thinking of the numbers, 60-30-10″ and someone else said, “I sensed the numbers 600, 300, 100,” another “60-30-10,” and finally, a fourth, “6-3-1, double.”

“The woman who sensed “6-3-1, double” went on to explain that the 6 meant $600 and was to go to one need. The 3 meant $300 and was meant to go to the other need, and the 1 was $100 and needed to be kept back. The she went on and said something like, “The ‘double’ is because we are meant to give our own money and double what has been given to us because right now this gift hasn’t cost us anything and we are meant to give out of our own resources.”

“We returned to group dialogue to check with everyone’s spirit to make sure there weren’t any “red flags” in anyone’s hearts, and, surprisingly, everyone was on the same page. We were then able to discuss how to be people of generosity throughout the week and to plan to “double” what had been given to us by giving back to needs we experienced in our circles of influence.

“A sense of excitement and peace permeated that living room as we reflected on the fact that the Spirit had spoken, and not only that, but He had chosen to do so through different members of our group while the rest tested His voice. People remarked to one another that they felt a part of something significant and how amazing it was to observe and participate in the body responding to the movement of the Spirit.” [From “Sixty, Thirty, Ten, Double” by ChristaMcKirland]

The more your organic church practices this sort of thing, the more common and “normal” it will become. But it will only work if everyone in the church family works together to submit to the Holy Spirit, and to one another, to arrive at the answer that the Lord desires for you.

Who makes decisions in an Organic Church? Jesus does! He’s the Head. He’s the Senior Pastor. The rest of us are all brothers and sisters – and members of His Body – who submit to Christ as Lord, both in our personal lives, and in our corporate times together as a Family.

Once you hand all of this over to an expert or a Senior Pastor, it’s the last corporate decision your Church will ever make together.

Do you want to go far? Go together. Just make sure you’re all following Jesus.

-kg

NOTE: This blog is part of an ongoing series. Read the two previous posts by Jon Zens and Richard Jacobson HERE.
 

 

 

 
 

 

[PODCAST] Subversive Radio: Women Will Be Saved Through Childbirth?

It's probably one of the most confounding, and habitually misunderstood verses in the entire bible. What the heck does Paul mean when he says that "women will be saved through childbirth"?

Hint: It has nothing to do with salvation, or the birth of Christ.

Listen in and learn the whole story once and for all.

[Subversive Radio] Round Table: Cole, Zens, Montgomery, Williamson

Listen To Religion Internet Radio Stations with Subversive Radio on BlogTalkRadio

ROUND TABLE DIALOG: What are some common misconceptions about House Church and What makes a House Church work?

Join Herb Montgomery, Jon Zens, Neil Cole and Kent Williamson in our first ever Round Table Discussion about House Church and Organic Church.

[Subversive Radio] Interview: Jon Zens "Why All The One-Anothers?"

Online Religion Radio at Blog Talk Radio with Subversive Radio on BlogTalkRadio

If the Senior Pastor is so integral to the functioning of the Church, then why doesn't the New Testament ever mention who the pastor of any church was? Why are no letters written to them? And what are all those "one anothers" for?

Author Jon Zens joins us to talk about how God intended the New Testament Church to function, and what happens when Jesus is truly the Head of His Church.

TODAY'S ISRAEL: IS GOD ON HER SIDE?

The following article was written by Jon Zens and appeared in SEARCHING TOGETHER MAGAZINE, Winter, 1991.


"Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, says he has been assured by Prime Minister Menachem Begin that Israel eventually will control an area that includes parts of Egypt and Turkey. Begin shares the Biblical view of the promised land said Falwell in a copyright story in Sunday's editions of the Tyler Courier-Times Telegraph. He said Begin, whom he termed a personal friend, told him that the first book of the Bible predicts Israel eventually will have boundaries on the Euphrates and Nile rivers and will include portions of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait." Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene. OR), Feb. 7, 1983.

The above Israel-centered sentiments reflect one popular viewpoint among Bible-believers in America. Adherents of this view believe that all nations must bless and protect Israel or incur God's wrath. Few, however, realize that this particular prophetic perspective began in England with the Irvingites and J.N. Darby in the 1830's. This outlook had never before been suggested in the history of Christian thinking. Yet, because of seven trips that Darby made to America during his lifetime in the nineteenth century, his views ultimately came to dominate among evangelicals in the States.

The essence of this position is that God has two purposes in history, an earthly one with Israel and a heavenly one with the church. From this vantage point what transpires in the world is Israel-centered. Hence, Charles Feinberg's 1980 hook is titled Israel: At The Center Of History and Revelation (Multnomah Press). As a result, the literature on "prophecy" that fills the shelves of bookstores brings readers the following dogmatic opinions:

What is God's will for today? This can be put into one word: Israel. Israel is the final chord of a scriptural age and at the same time she is the prelude to a new age, the millennium, the thousand years of peace. The eternal God is busy today fulfilling his holy will, that is, concerning Israel herself.... All nations are compelled today to do God's will so that it is actually being said to Israel, "be built" and to the temple "be laid."

This two-purposes theory, which came to be called "Dispensationalism," carries with it a peculiar notion about Israel's "right" to certain geographical territory in Palestine. Proponents of this view claim that God has given Israel that land "forever." If she has a "divine right" to this soil, then it is easy to see how this provides justification for all types of military conflict, and causes a stumbling block to peaceful political solutions in the Middle East. (Of course, the problem is compounded since all Middle Eastern nations claim that God is with them).

Does Israel have God's sanction to possess a land in these days? Must Christians support Israel because God is with her in some special way? Is this post-1948 nation the center of history? Is Christ or Israel the focus of God's revelation? These and other questions will be addressed in what follows.


God Promised a Land to Abraham
In Genesis 12:5-7 God spoke to Abraham and promised, "to your seed I will give this land." This foundational promise to Abraham is the premise for contemporary claims that God has given a specific land to Israel "forever." However, it is significant that Paul saw these words given to Abram-"in you all the nations will be blessed" - as an announcement of the gospel to the Gentiles, not as an indication of Israel's centrality as a measuring stick for world events (Gal. 3:8).


God Sealed This Promise in a Covenant Ceremony
In Genesis 15:7-21 God makes a covenant with Abraham which was ratified by God symbolically passing through the pieces of meat. The giving of a defined territory is at the heart of this solemn ceremony: "to your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates; the Kenites, the Kenizites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perrizites, the Rephaims, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and Jesushites."

In the midst of this covenant-making event, the future of Israel is spelled out: bondage in Egypt for 400 years; the judgment upon Pharaoh; the Exodus; and entrance into the land described above in the fourth generation.


God Fulfilled This Abrahamic Promise Later in History
It is clear from a number of Old Testament statements that the land-promise to Abraham was indeed fulfilled. The land was given delineated in Genesis 15, and several verses in Joshua are especially forceful in this regard:

So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses, and He gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions (Josh. 11:23).... So the Lord gave Israel all the land He has sworn to their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as He had sworn to their forefathers....Not one of all the Lord's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled (Joshua 21:41-45).

There are many other Old Testament scriptures that echo this fulfillment theme (Gen. 28:13-15; 1 Kings 4:21, 8:56; Deut. 28; Exodus 3:17, 6:8; Deut. 30:20, 1:8, 7:2, 11:23, 34:1-4; Joshua 23:13-16; Neh. 9:8, 21-25). If the territorial dimension of the Lord's promise to Abraham was fulfilled, as these scriptures assert, this raises serious questions about the propriety of suggesting that twentieth-century "Israel" has a divine claim to this land. The Lord accomplished His word: He gave the descendants of Abraham the land described in Genesis 15:18-21. To purport that God has somehow not yet fulfilled the land-promises, or that they actually came to fruition in 1948, is to stretch the original prophetic word to Abraham beyond recognition.


Israel's Remaining in this Land was Conditioned on Obedience
There are many verses in Deuteronomy that reflect the foundation of the Mosaic covenant, "do this and live," with respect to the land. If Israel ever went after other gods and broke the covenant, she was assured by God that she would be "cast out of the land." Abiding in the land God had given to them was linked to their faithfulness. Unfaithfulness had serious consequences.

Israel's later history reflected the implications of her disobedience. The land was invaded by foreigners, and Israel was captive in a strange land. As time went on the Israelites were "dispersed" to various places in the world. It is this "casting out'' of Israel from the land that sets the stage for a future concept of regathering into that lost territory.


The New Testament Perspective on Israel and the Land
The New Testament teaches that the formation, history and institutions of Israel were types and shadows of spiritual realities that would come in the days of the Messiah (Heb.8:1-5; 1 Cor.10:18). The essential elements of Israel's life as a covenant people (prophet, priest, king, sacrificial system, ark of the covenant, etc.) were all fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27, 44-45; Rom.15:8; 2 Cor.1:20).

The preparatory nature of the Mosaic economy must be underscored. The law-covenant had an historical beginning and ending (Ga1.3:17, 19, 25). The old covenant was temporary and lasted only "until the Seed (Christ) had come." When the fulfillment had come there was no reason to continue the types and shadows (Co1.2:16-17). Israel as an earthly people separated to God by the Exodus was to be fulfilled by Christ, whose obedience unto death constituted a New Exodus that would separate a New Covenant people for God's service.

It is only in this light that the "promised land" must be evaluated. The land given to Israel was never intended to be an end in itself. It pointed to something better in the future. Even Abraham who received the promises did not focus on earthly geography, but rather on a "better country - a heavenly one. . . whose architect and builder is God" (Heb.ll:16,10). Like other aspects of Israel's covenant life, the land was a picture of gospel realities to come, not an ongoing entity to be somehow reclaimed in the future by an earthly people in 1948.

The concept of "Israel" is fulfilled both in Christ and in the new people of God, the body of Christ. Jesus, like Israel, is called out of Egypt (Matt.2:15) and finds Himself in the wilderness (Matt.4:1-2). Jesus, unlike Israel, is obedient to the covenant and is the "faithful servant" referred to in the Prophets.

In light of the emphasis given to alleged unalterable promises made to Israel about the land, it is instructive to recall that God's words were addressed to Abraham and his "seed." This "Seed," says Paul, was singular and refers to Christ, not to an earthly people (Ga1.3:16). Thus, for example, the promised offspring to Abraham must be seen as an innumerable company of believers, not as a regathering of an earthly nation (Ga1.3:29; Rev.5:9, 7:9). The physical descendants of Abraham, who indeed became like the sand of the sea in number, were a picture of the harvest Christ would accomplish in the gospel age from every tribe, kindred and people. For this reason believers can be referred to by Paul as "the Israel of God" (Ga1.6:16).


The Rise of "Zionism"
Because Israel was cast out of the covenant land and forced to exist in cultures outside of Palestine, it is not surprising that as history elapsed a new form of Israelite nationalism would arise. From the time of Constantine onwards those attached to the synagogues had a rough time functioning in other countries. They were often persecuted, mistreated, misunderstood and discriminated against. Nevertheless, being hard workers, they tended to prosper in their trades and businesses.

"Zion" came to refer to the deep attachment most Jews had for their homeland. "Zionism" is primarily a modern movement that arose out of some social struggles of the nineteenth century. Anti-Semitism, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia, caused the Jews to long for a rebirth of Judaism. This became connected to their "right" to the old promised land.

"Zionism" was divided into two camps. Some, like Ahad Ha'am, focused on spiritual renewal. But the major thrust, which was essentially political and nationalistic, came from men like Moses Hess, Leo Pinsker and Theodor Herzl.

In the late nineteenth century some wealthy Jews in Western Europe helped assist in the establishment of small Jewish colonies in Palestine. In this context, Theodor Kerzl's per Judenstaat, "The Jewish State" (1896), became the foundation for modern Zionism. He came to the conclusion that a homeland for the Jews was the only solution to the mistreatment they were experiencing in most other places. Under his guidance the first Zionist Congress met in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897 and the World Zionist Organization was formed.

A proposal for a Jewish homeland obviously created a serious conflict with those already living in Palestine. What would happen to those already occupying this region? Would these people leave peacefully so that Jews could live in ''their'' land?

Herzl's ideas were passed on to a Russian-born Jew, Chaim Weizmann, in 1904. Because of his discovery of a powerful explosive called cordite (he was a chemist at the University of Manchester), Weizmann was brought into prominence. He used his influence to try and get the British government to conquer Palestine, hold it for Jewish immigration and settlement, and then allow the land to be used for British interests. Through a series of events the British took over Jerusalem in December of 1917. Then in the Balfour Declaration it was stated that Britain favored the establishment of a home in Palestine for the Jews, but not to the hurt of those already living in the area.

Needless to say, in the ensuing years tensions began to mount between Jewish settlers and the Arab population. The Biltmore Conference (May, 1942), led by David Ben-Gurion, stated that British-controlled Palestine should become Jewish property. This alarmed many Jews, and as a result an anti-Zionist organization - The American Council for Judaism - was formed in May of 1943.

With the knowledge of Hitler's atrocities against the Jews coming to light in May of 1945, the Zionist program regained strength and support. But Arabs resisted the importation of Jews into the land.

In 1947 the British turned over their control of Palestine to the newly-formed United Nations Organization. Under much political pressure, the U.N. finally partitioned off' a small portion of the land (the size of Vermont) for the Jews in November of 1947. As the British withdrew in 1948, armed groups of Zionists forced thousands of Arabs to leave their homes. In the midst of this conflict there was a declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948.

Since then there has been constant pressure for Jews to return to "the land." World Zionism looks upon this State as the home of all Jews. The Justification for Occupying "The Land" In order to justify the many political and military actions necessary to establish, maintain, defend and expand "the land," Zionists have used many Old Testament texts. Inherent in this approach is the idea that God is on Israel's side, and that He has purposed for her to possess this land. With this foundation a rationale is provided to kill people, to displace thousands of people, and to do what it takes to "rule."

"Support Israel or Experience God's Wrath"
- Jerry Falwell

To add to the problem many conservative Christians believe that the Old Testament supports Israel's right to the land, and they see May 14, 1948, as an amazing fulfillment of "prophecy." Those who hold to this perspective believe that Christians must be pro-Israel. Jerry Falwell asserted at a meeting of religious broadcasters, "theologically, any Christian has to support Israel, simply because Jesus said to." During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Oral Roberts confidently posited, "there is no way Israel is going to be defeated, according to the Bible." Thus many television and radio preachers and Christian leaders fervently encourage their followers to support Israel in her efforts to maintain the land, and even exhort believers to contribute financial aid for Israel's cause.

Based on God's promise to Abraham -- "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" -- many preachers are dogmatic in saying that all nations must support Israel or be doomed to the worst calamities. This leads to the conviction, of course, that the USA must support Israel's cause or experience God's wrath, as Jerry Falwell suggested. Tremendous pressure is exerted by pro-Israel forces upon our State Department not to do anything that would violate our good relations with Israel. To compound this problem, recent U.S. Presidents have embraced the notion of Israel's divine right to the land.


"God Is With Us"
The position of the Zionists and of many Christians creates many serious problems. If God is on Israel's side, then it becomes virtually impossible to critique her policies and actions. In principle, whatever Israel does must be right since God backs her supremacy in the land. We must never forget, however, that "God is with us" was inscribed on the belt buckles of those who burned Jews in ovens. History reveals that the "God is with us" slogan has often been behind the worst of atrocities.


God Is Not With Israel or Any Other Nation
In the former days God did separate Israel for Himself and gave her the land promised to Abraham. Israel was special among all the nations of the earth (Deut.7). But ultimately the blessing upon Abraham was to be given to all the nations (Matt.28:19-20). With the coming of Christ God fulfilled all the promises to the fathers (Rom.15:8). In this age, "God does not show favoritism, but accepts people from every nation who fear Him and do what is right'' (Acts 10:34).

All of Israel's institutions were fulfilled in Christ - including the land concept Heb. 3-4). The Old Testament clearly states that God kept His word and gave the land to Israel. The notion that God had to give the land "again" is without Biblical foundation.

There is nothing wrong with Jews living in a certain land, but to claim a "divine right" to it and to employ this claim as a basis for disputing, hurting, and killing others is wrong. God is not with people when they manipulate and intimidate others. God uses the wicked actions of people in His purposes, but He does not sanction them.


Concluding Thoughts
The Middle East conflicts have no easy solution. But we can be sure that a solution for the benefit of ail involved cannot be realized as long as many Jews and Christians continue to maintain that God is with Israel in the taking of "the land." The "divine right" notion will only block efforts for peace in the Middle East. It can only serve as continued justification for taking the lives of others in "serving God's cause."

More importantly, however, it must be noted that the Israel-centeredness of much Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism diverts attention away from the One whom God has set His seal upon - Jesus Christ (John 6:27; Matt.3:17). People are blessed or cursed not by how they treat Israel, but by how they respond to the claims of Christ upon their lives (Psalm 2:12; 1 Cor.16:22). God's purpose focuses on the Son, not on an earthly nation (Eph.3:ll). God is not ruling all things with reference to Israel, but with reference to the body of Christ on earth (Eph.l:22). The unfolding of the future is not gauged by what happens to Israel, but by what Christ is doing to build His congregations.
The Scriptures - Old and New - specifically tell us how God is with us. Jesus' name was Immanuel - "God with us." God is with those who are in his Son, not with any nation. In this sense, then, He is with all those believers who are "in Christ."

-Jon Zens

Download a free Ebook version of THIS IS MY BODY

Thanks to the hard work of Jon Philpott, my new book, This Is My Body: Ekklesia as God Intended is now available in an EPUB format. Mr. Philpott volunteered to create the ebook version for free, and then he hosted it on his own domain and created the landing page too. Wow.

So, as you download and enjoy this free copy of my new book on your iPad, iPod, Android phone, Sony Reader, Nook, Kobo, and other e-reader devices - be sure to say a prayer of blessing for this dear brother in Christ whom I only met a few days ago.

Download the EPUB version (for free):
HERE

PS- You can buy my book in print or download a PDF file for free at my online store
HERE