Sunday, June 19, 2011

FREE CHRISTIAN BOOK

The book you are about to download and read will be a refreshing confirmation to many believers who have sought truth over tradition, as it confronts head on many of the unscriptural, unhelpful and destructive aspects of institutional Christianity; for many however, the powerful truths laid out in this book could be hard to hear.

Have you ever wondered why we do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we "dress up" for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? For many, these practices are never questioned, yet when one takes a closer look, we discover a whole host of destructive non-biblical practices

Could I suggest that before you proceed any further, that you click the following link and read our response to a frequently made comment? Hopefully, it will help you understand the huge hurdle and mind-set we are up against when discussing such a passionate topic.

http://www.freechristianbook.ca/

Is Tithing Biblical?

Tithing does appear in the Bible. So yes, tithing is Biblical. But it is not Christian. The tithe belongs to ancient Israel. It was essentially their income tax. Never do you find first-century Christians tithing in the NT.

Most Christians do not have the foggiest idea about what the Bible teaches regarding the tithe. So let us look at it. The word “tithe” simply means the tenth part. The Lord instituted three kinds of tithes for Israel as part of their taxation system. They are:

  • A tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan.’
  • A tithe of the produce of the land to sponsor religious festivals in Jerusalem. If the produce was too burdensome for a family to carry to Jerusalem, they could convert it into money.’
  • A tithe of the produce of the land collected every third year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers, and widows.’
This was the Biblical tithe. Notice that God commanded Israel to give 23.3% of their income every year, as opposed to 10%.6 These tithes consisted of the produce of the land—which is, the seed of the land, the fruit of the land, and the herd or the flock. It was the product of the land, not money.

A clear parallel can be seen between Israel’s tithing system and the modern taxation system present in America. Israel was obligated to support their national workers (priests), their holidays (festivals), and their poor (strangers, widows, and orphans) by their annual tithes. Most modern tax systems serve the same purpose.

With the death of Jesus, all ceremonial, governmental, and religious codes that belonged to the Jews were nailed to His cross and buried…never to come out again to condemn us. For this reason, we never see Christians tithing in the NT. No more than we see them sacrificing goats and bulls to cover their sins!

Paul writes, “And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross…Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.’”

Tithing belonged exclusively to Israel under the Law. When it comes to financial stewardship, we see the first-century saints giving cheerfully according to their ability—not dutifully out of a command. Giving in the early church was voluntary. And those who benefited from it were the poor, orphans, widows, sick, prisoners, and strangers.

I can hear someone making the following objection right now: “But what about Abraham? He lived before the Law. And we see him tithing to the high priest Melchizedek. Does this not overturn your argument that the tithe is part of the Mosaic Law?”

No it does not. 
First, Abraham’s tithe was completely voluntary. It was not compulsory. God did not command it as He did with the tithe for Israel.

Second, Abraham tithed out of the spoils that he acquired after a particular battle he fought. He did not tithe out of his own regular income or property. Abraham’s act of tithing would be akin to you winning the lottery, a mega jackpot, or receiving a work-bonus, then tithing it.

Third, and most important, this is the only time that Abraham tithed out of his 175 years of life on this earth. We have no evidence that he ever did such a thing again. Consequently, if you wish to use Abraham as a “proof text” to argue that Christians must tithe, then you are only obligated to tithe one time.

This brings us back to that oft-quoted text in Malachi 3. What was God saying there?

First, this passage was directed to ancient Israel when they were under the Mosaic Law. God’s people were holding back their tithes and offerings. Consider what would happen if a large portion of Americans refused to pay their income taxes. American law views this as robbery.Those found guilty would be punished for stealing from the government.

In the same way, when Israel held back her taxes (tithes), she was stealing from God—the One who instituted the tithing system. The Lord then commanded His people to bring their tithes into the storehouse. The storehouse was located in the chambers of the temple. The chambers were set apart to hold the tithes (which was produce, not money) for the support of the Levites, the poor, the strangers, and the widows.

Notice the context of Malachi-3:8-10: In verse 5, the Lord says that He will judge those who oppress the widow, the fatherless, and the stranger. He says, “So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testes against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me.”

The widows, fatherless, and strangers were the rightful re­cipients of the tithe. Because Israel was withholding her tithes, she was guilty of oppressing these three groups. Herein is the heart of God in Malachi 3:8-10: Oppression to the poor.

How many times have you heard preachers point this out when they harangued you with Malachi 3? Out of the scores of sermons I have heard on tithing, I never once heard a whisper about what the passage was actually talking about. That is, tithes were for the purpose of supporting the widows, the fatherless, the strangers, and the Levites (who owned nothing). This is what the Lord’s word in Malachi 3 has in view.

The Origin of the Tithe and the Clergy Salary
Cyprian (200-258) is the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially supporting the clergy. He argued that just as the Levites were supported by the tithe, so the Christian clergy should be supported by the tithe. But this is misguided thinking. Today, the Levitical system has been abolished. We are all priests now. So if a priest demands a tithe, then all Christians should tithe to one another!

Cyprian’s plea was exceedingly rare for his time. It was neither picked up nor echoed by the Christian populace until much later. Other than Cyprian, no Christian writer before Constantine ever used Old Testament references to advocate tithing.” It was not until the fourth century, 300 years after Christ, that some Christian leaders began to advocate tithing as a Christian practice to support the clergy. But it did not become widespread among Christians until the eighth century! According to one scholar, “For the first seven hundred years they [tithes] are hardly ever mentioned.”

Charting the history of Christian tithing is a fascinating exercise. Tithing evolved from the State to the church. Giving a tenth of one’s produce was the customary rent-charge for lands that were leased in Western Europe. As the church increased its ownership of land across Europe, the 10% rent-charge was given to the church. This gave the 10% rent-charge a new meaning. It came to be identified with the Levitical tithe! Consequently, the Christian tithe as an institution was based on a fusion of Old Testament practice and pagan institution.

By the eighth century, the tithe became required by law in many areas of Western Europe. By the end of the tenth century, the distinction of the tithe as a rent-charge and a moral requirement supported by the Old Testament had faded. The tithe became mandatory throughout Christian Europe.

To put it another way, before the eighth century the tithe was practiced as a voluntary offering. But by the end of the tenth century, it had devolved into a legal requirement to fund the State church—demanded by the clergy and enforced by the secular authorities!

Thankfully, most modern churches have done away with the tithe as a legal requirement. But the practice of tithing is as much alive today as it was when it was legally binding. Sure, you may not be physically punished if you fail to tithe. But if you are not a tither in most modern churches, you will be barred from a slew of ministry positions. And you will be forever guilted from the pulpit!

As far as clergy salaries go, ministers were unsalaried for the first three centuries. But when Constantine appeared, he instituted the practice of paying a fixed salary to the clergy from church funds and municipal and imperial treasuries. Thus was born the clergy salary, a harmful practice that has no root in the NT.

The Root of All Evil
If a believer wishes to tithe out of personal decision or conviction, that is fine. Tithing becomes a problem when it is rep-resented as God’s command, binding upon every believer.

Mandatory tithing equals oppression to the poor. Not a few poor Christians have been thrown headlong into further poverty because they have been told that if they do not tithe, they are robbing God. When tithing is taught as God’s command, Christians who can barely make ends meet are guilted into deeper poverty. In this way, tithing evacuates the gospel from being “good news to the poor.” Rather than good news, it becomes a heavy burden. Instead of liberty, it becomes oppression. We are so apt to forget that the original tithe that God established for Israel was to benefit the poor, not hurt them!

Conversely, modern tithing is good news to the rich. To a high-earner, 10% is but a paltry sum. Tithing, therefore, appeases the consciences of the rich, while it has no significant impact on their lifestyles. Not a few wealthy Christians are deluded into thinking they are “obeying God” because they throw a measly 10% of their income into the offering plate.

But God has a very different view of giving. Recall the parable of the widow’s mite: “Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. ‘I tell you the truth,’ He said, ‘this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.’”

Sadly, tithing is often viewed as a litmus test for discipleship. If you are a good Christian, you will tithe (so it is thought). But this is a bogus application. Tithing is no sign of Christian devotion. If it were, all first-century Christians would be condemned as being undevoted!

The lingering root behind the sustained push for tithing in the modern church is the unbiblical clergy salary. Not a few pastors feel that they must preach tithing to remind their congregation of its obligation to support them and their programs. And they will use the promise of financial blessing or the fear of a financial curse to ensure that the tithes keep rolling in.

In this way, modern tithing is the equivalent of a Christian lottery. Pay the tithe, and God will give you more money in return. Refuse to tithe, and God will punish you. Such thoughts rip at the heart of the good news of the gospel.

The same can be said about the clergy salary. It too has no NT merit. In fact, the clergy salary runs against the grain of the entire New Covenant. Elders (shepherds) in the first century were never salaried. They were men with an earthly vocation. 38 They gave to the flock rather than took from it.

Salarying pastors makes them paid professionals. It elevates them above the rest of God’s people. It creates a clerical caste that turns the living Body of Christ into a business. Since the pastor and his staff are “paid” to do ministry—they are the paid professionals. The rest of the church lapses into a state of passive dependence.

If every Christian got in touch with the call that lies upon them to be functioning priests in the Lord’s house (and they were permitted to exercise that call), the question would immediately arise: “What on earth are we paying our pastor for!?”

But in the presence of a passive priesthood, such questions never arise. On the contrary, when the church functions as she should, a professional clergy becomes unnecessary. Suddenly, the thought that says, “that is the job of the pastor” looks heretical. Put simply, a professional clergy fosters the pacifying illusion that the Word of God is classified (and dangerous) material that only card-carrying experts can handle.

But that is not all. Paying a pastor forces him to be a man-pleaser. It makes him the slave of men. His meal-ticket is attached to how well his congregation likes him. Thus he is not free to speak freely without the fear that he may lose some heavy tithers. Herein lies the scourge of the pastor system.

A further peril of the paid pastor system is that it produces men who are void of any skill—something we inherited from the pagan Greeks. For this reason, it takes a man of tremendous courage to step out of the pastorate.

Unfortunately, most of God’s people are deeply naive about the overwhelming power of the pastor system. It is a faceless system that does not tire of chewing up and spitting out its young. 43 Again, God never intended the professional pastorate to exist. There is no Scriptural mandate or justification for such a thing. In fact, it is impossible to construct a Biblical defense for it.44
Most frequently, ushers are called upon to handle the reception of the money during the church service. Typically, they do so by passing a “collection plate” to the congregation. The practice of passing the collection plate is another post-apostolic invention. It began in 1662. Although alms dishes and alms chests were present before then.45 The usher originated from Queen Elizabeth I’s (1533-1603) reorganization of the liturgy of the church of England. Ushers had the job of seeing where the people sat, collecting the offering, and keeping records of who took communion. The predecessor of the usher is the church “porter.” The porter was a minor order (lesser clergy) tracing back to the third century.46 Porters had the duty of superintending lock up and opening of church doors, keeping order in the building, and the general direction of the deacons.47 Porters were replaced by “churchwardens” in England before and during the Reformation period.48 Out of the churchwarden grew the usher.

Conclusion
In conclusion, tithing, while Biblical, is not Christian. Jesus Christ did not affirm it. The first-century Christians did not observe it. And for 300 years, God’s people did not practice it. Tithing did not become a widely accepted practice among Chris­tians until the eighth century!

Giving in the NT was according to one’s ability. Christians gave to help other believers as well as to support apostolic workers, enabling them to travel and plant churches. One of the most outstanding testimonies of the early church has to do with how liberal the Christians were to the poor and needy. This is what provoked outsiders, including the philosopher Galen, to watch the awesome, winsome power of the early church and say: “Behold how they love one another.”
Tithing is only mentioned four times in the NT. But none of these instances applies to Christians.

 Again, tithing belongs to the Old Testament era where a taxation system was needed to support the poor and where a special priesthood was set apart to minister to the Lord. With the coming of Jesus Christ, there has been a “change of law”—the old has been “set aside” and rendered obsolete by the new.

We are all priests now—free to function in God’s house. The Law, the old priesthood, and the tithe have all been crucified. There is now no temple curtain, no temple tax, and no special priesthood that stands between God and man. You, dear Christian, have been set free from the bondage of tithing and from the obligation to support an unbiblical clergy system.

The Distinction between Clergy and Laity – Is it of God?

Some Christians attend gatherings in which a distinction is made between those who are "clergy" and those who are "laity", while others attend gatherings at which no such distinction is made.  So how and when did this distinction come about? and is it a Biblical distinction?

GREEK WORD ORIGINS
Let us first consider the Greek forms, definitions, and Biblical uses of these words.  The Greek form of the word "clergy" is "kleros", which James Strong assigns the number 2819 and defines as "heritage, inheritance, lot, part" in his Dictionary of Bible Words.  It is used 13 times in the New Testament for the following:
  • the "lots" cast on Jesus' vesture (Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:24, and John 19:24)
  • Judas Iscariot's "part" in service (Acts 1:17); the "part" of the service and apostleship from which Judas fell (Acts 1:25)
  • the "lots" given on Barsabas and Matthias, and the "lot" which fell on Matthias (Acts 1:26)
  • the "lot" which Simon did not have (Acts 8:21)
  • the "inheritance" which saved Gentiles receive (Acts 26:18); the "inheritance" which the saints share (Colossians 1:12)
  • members of the flock, God's "heritage" or "allotment", whom the elders are to shepherd and not to lord it over (1 Peter 5:3)
The Greek form of the word "laity" is "laos", which Strong assigns number 2992 and defines simply as "people".  It is used 143 times in the New Testament – in Matthew 2:6 for God's "people" Israel; in Luke 2:31 for all "peoples", before whose face God has prepared His salvation; in Romans 9:24-26 for Gentile "people" whom God has called; in 1 Peter 2:9-10 for a "people" for a possession, God's "people"; in Revelation 14:6 for every "people" to whom the everlasting gospel is preached; and in Revelation 21:3 for God's "people" with whom He will dwell eternally.
So kleros and laos are clearly Biblical concepts.  But there is no suggestion in scripture that the kleros are a class or group of persons distinct from the laos

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
So when did this unbiblical distinction between clergymen and lay persons come about?  Church historian Charles Jacobs, in The Story of the Church, writes:  "In the beginning most of the work of the congregation was done by people who had no official position.  It was voluntary service, freely rendered.  By the middle of the third century, it was done by the professional clergy.  Between clergymen and laity there was a sharp distinction.  The clergy, too, were divided into higher and lower grades. In the higher grades were bishops, presbyters and deacons; in the lower grade sub-deacons, lectors, exorcists, acolytes and janitors.  All of them were inducted into office by some form of ordination, and the idea of local organization had gone so far that in some churches even the grave diggers were ordained.  Thus the work of the Church was passing out of the hands of the many into those of the few, and these few were coming to be regarded as belonging to a higher class."

Several influences contributed to this situation.  As persons converted from Judaism and from Gentile paganism, they tended to bring with them the sacerdotalism of Judaism and the traditional notions of their Gentile pagan religions.  And in the post-apostolic era, the "church fathers" (especially two men from Carthage, North Africa – Tertullian and Cyprian) gradually planted the seeds for the distinction of a class of teachers and priests from the laity, until by the 3rd century, the clergy was an entrenched institution.

For instance, early in the 2nd century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Ephesians, urging them to revere and be subject to a ruling bishop* (chapters II and VI) and to look upon him even as they would look upon the Lord Himself (chapter VI).  Clement of Rome referred to the peculiar services assigned to the high priests, the proper place prescribed to the priests, the special ministrations devolving on the Levites, and the "layman" being bound by the laws that pertain to laymen (first letter to Corinth, chapter 40).

* Interestingly, in Revelation 2:4, we read of the Ephesians hating "the works of the Nicolaitanes" which God also hates; later, we read of some who "hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes".  I have found no evidence of a Nicolaitane sect in the apostolic era.  Indeed, the word Nicolaitane is a composite of the two Greek words nikos (conquer) and laos (people).

Then, around the end of the 2nd century, Tertullian of Carthage, in his paper entitled "On Monogamy", may have been the first to use the word clerus in the sense of clergy, writing in chapter 12, "Unde enim episcopi et clerus? ..."  In English, the passage reads, "For whence is it that the bishops and clergy come?  Is it not from all?  If all are not bound to monogamy, whence are monogamists (to be taken) into the clerical rank?  Will some separate order of monogamists have to be instituted, from which to make selection for the clerical body?"

Lastly, during the 3rd century, Cyprian of Carthage wrote several epistles in which he commonly and overtly distinguished between clergy and laity, and also limited the role of the priesthood to a select few.  For example, in epistle XI, he wrote, "... I have written both to the clergy and to the martyrs and confessors ...".  And in epistle XXII, he wrote, "I wrote to my clergy about these matters".  In epistle XXX, the Roman clergy wrote to Cyprian, "what you also have yourself declared in so important a matter, is satisfactory to us, that the peace of the Church must first be maintained; then, that an assembly for counsel being gathered together, with bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors, as well as with the laity who stand fast, we should deal with the case of the lapsed".  In epistle LI, Cyprian wrote, of one Cornelius, "he was not one who suddenly attained to the episcopate; but, promoted through all the ecclesiastical offices, ... he ascended by all the grades of religious service to the lofty summit of the Priesthood.  ...  Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men".  In the same epistle he wrote that one Trophimus "was admitted in such a manner as only to communicate as a layman, not, according to the information given to you by the letters of the malignants, in such a way as to assume the place of a priest".  In epistle LIV, he wrote, "there is one person for the time priest in the Church, and for the time judge in the stead of Christ; whom, if according to divine teaching, the whole fraternity should obey, no one would stir up anything against the college of priests".

These excerpts from writings spanning about 150 years after the apostolic era, testify to the developing state of things in what Cyprian began to call "the Catholic church" (epistle XL).

ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
The Bible translation comparison table compares four versions of several key verses bearing on this subject – the Greek Textus Receptus, the literal English translation, the King James (authorized) translation, and the Darby translation – and includes brief notes on each verse.  This table shows disturbing evidence of a bias in the King James translation toward persons being humanly ordained and having "office", whether it be of a bishop, a deacon, or even the priesthood.  Words to this effect were added or uniquely translated this way in certain key verses, rather than simply translating them literally, according to their common usages.

In one of the most obvious instances, the generally helpful King James Bible erroneously translates the last phrase of Acts 1:22.  The phrase translates literally:  "a witness of his resurrection to become with us one of these" or more readably:  "one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection".  But the King James Bible renders it:  "must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection".  The words "must ... be ordained", inserted by the translators, seem to support the notion of an ordained clergy.  But these fabricated words are not in the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated!

CONCLUSION
Well, we have (1) considered the meanings and Biblical uses of the Greek words kleros and laos, (2) found that the concept of a clerical class as distinct from the laity is not scriptural, (3) learned how this distinction gradually developed in the post-apostolic era, and (4) carefully reviewed how certain relevant Greek words and phrases have been translated (and mis-translated) into English.

Let's close this paper by reading and prayerfully considering a few verses from the inspired Word of God which bear on our subject:
  • "For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them."  Matthew 18:20.
  • "But ye, be not ye called Rabbi:  for one is your instructor, and all ye are brethren.  And call not any one your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, he who is in the heavens.  Neither be called instructors, for one is your instructor, the Christ."  Matthew 23:8-10.
  • "For, as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; thus we, being many, are one body in Christ, and each one members one of the other.  But having different gifts, according to the grace which has been given to us, whether it be prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or service, let us occupy ourselves in service; or he that teaches, in teaching; or he that exhorts, in exhortation; he that gives, in simplicity; he that leads, with diligence; he that shews mercy, with cheerfulness."  Romans 12:4-8.
  • "What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation.  Let all things be done to edification.  If any one speak with a tongue, let it be two, or at the most three, and separately, and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God.  And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.  But if there be a revelation to another sitting there, let the first be silent.  For ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all be encouraged.  And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.  For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints."  1 Corinthians 14:26-33.
  • "We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens; minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man."  Hebrews 8:1-2.
  • "To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."  1 Peter 2:4-5.
  • "To him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father:  to him be the glory and the might to the ages of ages.  Amen."  Revelation 1:5-6.
Let us simply gather to the name of the Lord Jesus, and experience the joy of His presence in the midst.  All true Christians are God's people (laos), His inheritance (cleros).  And Jesus is Minister of the sanctuary, our great High Priest, our glorious living Head, our Instructor, and our Savior. 

FOUR UNBIBLICAL MODELS FOR CHURCH

"And he (Jesus) said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" - Mark 7:9

Regardless of the fact that our New Testament never reveals anything close to the form of Church we practice today, the majority of Christians in America embrace traditions of men rather than follow the Biblical model.

James Rutz, in his book "Megashift" outlines four non-Biblical models for the modern Church:

The Harvard Model - Where the professor is the preacher, the lectern is the pulpit, and the students are parishioners. Trouble is, they can sit and take notes for forty years, but they'll never graduate, never get a degree, and never ever become professors themselves.

The Hollywood Model- With its stage, entertainers, polished performances, costumed singers, applauding audiences, etc. All the church needs is popcorn.

The IBM Model - Where a board of directors runs everything from the top down, where permission to do things is denied or granted by the CEO (Pastor) and committees, where finances are the overriding factor behind policies, and where the institution competes with other churches for market share.

The Wal-Mart Model- Where aisles and aisles of tempting merchandise offer something for everybody. Seeker-sensitive mega-churches, with their array of 100+ programs, mirror beautifully the "consumer heaven" ideal of Wal-Mart."

Why is it that Christians will adopt the pattern of anything under the sun when it comes to the Church except the New Testament model?

The modern Church loves the fruit of such models. They hold up the church in Acts as the model for every Christian believer, and yet they refuse to even seriously consider practicing their faith in such a way.

Why is that? Is it because we are afraid of truly embracing the Priesthood of the Believer where every baptized believer is empowered to build up the Body and receive direction from the Holy Spirit?

Is it because we want a system where paid professionals can take responsibility off of our shoulders?

Is it because we don't want to seem "weird" to the rest of the world?

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why we refuse to embrace the New Testament model, but the bottom line is, we love and trust our traditions more than we love and trust the Word of God.

We take the words of the Apostle Paul more seriously when it comes to head coverings and women leadership than we do when it comes to instructions on gathering to worship and glorify God in the assembly. Even though the number of chapters regarding the practice of our faith and God's design for His Church vastly outnumbers the handful of verses regarding the other debated topics, we cannot seem to take these verses seriously.

When we first left to start our house church there were those who told us, with a straight face, that what we were doing wasn't Biblical. Others claim that the New Testament is silent regarding how the Church should gather and worship. Neither claim could be more laughably untrue.

There are 58 "one anothers" in the New Testamnent. These verses instruct the Body to love, teach, train, equip, correct, admonish, restore, encouarge and share with one another. The New Testament was written to the Body. It wasn't written to Pastors or Leaders, but to encourage and strengthen the Body and to remind the Body "to build one another up in love".

We are the Church. We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

If there's any model we should be following it should come from the New Testament, not the corporate structures and systems of this World.

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." - Jesus (Mark 7:13)