tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19029288.post113232577417532110..comments2013-07-29T09:14:14.245-05:00Comments on Life in the Kingdom of God: Major Problems With "Small Groups" in ChurchesWebServanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16154745889932220412noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19029288.post-1132904193871244042005-11-25T02:36:00.000-05:002005-11-25T02:36:00.000-05:00"I suppose my question is simply: how much of the ..."I suppose my question is simply: how much of the identity of the first-century church is in the "first-century" part and how much is in the "church" part? Afterall, there's a reason we don't run church in America like they do in Muslim countries where Christianity is punishable by death..."<BR/><BR/>I don't want to be at all flippant about what the saints in those nations that are persecuting christian are enduring. However, I do think it noteworthy that persectution of those in other nations is normally easier for satan to achieve due to buiding in a wrong way (i.e. one man show pastor boss thing rather than from the least to the greatest). I read an article recently that discussed some saints in Vietnam that were being persectuted pretty hardcore. The police rounded up all their pastors and put them in jail. Then they arrested some of the "lay people" and told them that if they continued to "meet" they would face the same punishment as their leaders. The saints replied that the police had nothing to worry about because they couldn't meet. They had no one to teach them. This is remarkebly sad. Both that they are facing such extremes and that they have been taught to limit Jesus in such a way.<BR/><BR/>What I am getting at is this: If Jesus is building the Church that we are part of then the world will have no dominion over it. However, if we are building it, there is a good chance the world will recognize it and destroy it.Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120957230264435187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19029288.post-1132480500987425992005-11-20T04:55:00.000-05:002005-11-20T04:55:00.000-05:00Jeff, thanks so much for your comments!I'm certain...Jeff, thanks so much for your comments!<BR/>I'm certainly not advocating blindly following "acts" as THE one way. "We should pray because they prayed in Acts" would be a terrible reason to pray. :-) Right? We should pray because we love God and want to talk to him.<BR/>The very first thing you said is so true: "churches typically fall short of executing discipleship to the degree Christ intended". Jesus said to love each other just as he loved us--this is a command. His desire is that we be ONE even as he and the Father are one (John 17). Heb. 3:13 advocates "daily" exhorting of one another. Paul often says to speak the same thing, be of one mind, etc. Eph. 4 speaks of a church in which EACH PART is joined and knit together.<BR/>At best, the typical church in American is ignorant...at worst, outright disobedient...no to put it too harshly.<BR/>Again, thanks, and I hope to hear more from you. :-)WebServanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16154745889932220412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19029288.post-1132416685108619552005-11-19T11:11:00.000-05:002005-11-19T11:11:00.000-05:00While I agree that churches typically fall short o...While I agree that churches typically fall short of executing discipleship to the degree Christ intended, I'm always wary of calls to embrace the Acts/first-century church model. I certainly advocate unity and deeper togetherness in the Body, but people generally either claim that the first-century church is our absolute model (without regard to the historical context and identity) or claim that the first-century church could not exist in any context but that of the first-century and thus write it off as being largely irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>I'm not claiming you're in the first categeory by any means (what a horrible assumption that would be from reading a few paragraphs!). I think the strength of your argument rests best in the words of Christ rather than in the actions of a church that looked the way it did for a great variety of contextual reasons (persecution, social standing, etc.) AND obviously their attempts to be true to Christ.<BR/><BR/>I suppose I see the unity of the early church in many ways as being part of the cult (new religious movement) to church growth. Perhaps that level of togetherness and unity was what the first-century church needed to survive persecution and grow into a formal religion. Then, perhaps that same level is what we need to restore the church today.<BR/><BR/>It seems I'm just rambling more than anything, so I'll bring this to an end. I suppose my question is simply: how much of the identity of the first-century church is in the "first-century" part and how much is in the "church" part? Afterall, there's a reason we don't run church in America like they do in Muslim countries where Christianity is punishable by death...<BR/><BR/>In regards to the previous entries, though, togetherness would certainly help maintain purity and (the right people) spending time with the pastor outside of church would perhaps give accountability and prevent sex-scandals, etc.<BR/><BR/>Just some thoughts. I enjoy your blog.<BR/><BR/>-Jeff, youth pastor, alabama<BR/>(please forgive any typos, my toddler is climbing all over me)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com