C h a p t e r O n e 7/1/15

Transcription

1 C h a p t e r O n e 7/1/15 In these several chapters, we will be Considering the Calling of God s New Testament Ministry and How the Saints are to Regard Them. The Foreword makes reference to a term called doctrinal inbreeding. That term refers to our concept of Government within the Church, which was developed with intent to maintain a control structure within our congregations. That model was not employed in our earlier years, (in fact, we originally spoke against such a model) but was developed to manage a growing body. Many groups who descended from the parent organization continue to employ the same methods to one degree or another. The New Testament provides certain criteria for identifying those who ought to be placed in charge of a congregation (and who should not). These verses were in large part the base upon which we built our concept of government. The unfortunate thing is that we never really asked ourselves how do these offices if that s what they represent differ from one another? Is the only difference a matter of rank, or their authority? This is something we should have considered, but had anyone done so at the time, it would ve been met with serious rebuff, and perhaps expulsion from fellowship. One thing for certain, these ministries do not differ from one another in the content of their theology. Each understands and represents the same exact teachings, so it isn t a matter of doctrinal difference. Then, what could it be? We presumed it must mean ascending levels of Authority, and from there built a mental and operational structure that frustrated much of what we intended to achieve with respect to spiritual and numerical growth and doctrinal stability. What we should have considered is the operation of each of these as differing service functions, as Jesus presented them, not some chain-of-command authority structure functioning in place of the operational model He placed in His Church. Below is one question of several sent in by an affiliated pastor in another country, someone familiar with our positions on government, but not as fully informed in certain aspects. The bold lettering is his question, the lighter or italic is the reply. In Ephesians 4:11-16, the Apostle Paul mentioned what we called the 5 fold ministry which Christ gave for the edification of His Body, the church. Perhaps we should recognize these as separate and distinct operations within the Church. How they differ, we wouldn t expect to be doctrinal, but operational. Our question would be, How do they differ? Some would pose that they represent defined ranks of authority. That may be presumptuous, missing the point. Who or what are these ministries? See below. Are they needed in God s Church today? Absolutely. How can we identify them if they are needed today? Once people are brought into an awareness of God s Truth, more of the responsibility falls on the supposed lower end functionaries: Pastors, to hold together and lead and protect a flock, and teachers to bring His called-out ones to greater levels of understanding. As we see in verse 12, these levels of operation are not for some to vaunt their positions for personal aggrandizement (a common carnal characteristic) but to bring the body of Christ to greater degrees of perfection, edification and usefulness. [Eph. 4:11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; These are the five mentioned above. He gave some. The ability to be any of these is God-given. Unfortunately, too many are placed by carnal appointment, based more on a good-old-boy type network than evident fruits of the Spirit

2 apostles; Strong s #652: apostolos: a delegate or an ambassador of the gospel; messenger; one sent out. The presumption is often one sent directly and solely by God, thus placing that individual subject to no lesser authority. An apostle can also be one sent out by a congregation. If the lowly office of deacon was known by and nominated by the congregation, then certainly the apostle would be someone well-known among them. (Acts 6:3) Self-appointed apostles were the bane of the early Church. (see Rev. 2:2.) Apostles are always subject to congregational scrutiny, irrespective of their sponsor. (John 13:16) A principle that we disregarded. An apostle would be the emissary sent into virgin territory. When we visualize an apostle as being in full charge of everything overall, we effectively cancel his apostleship, making him a corporate administrator. Any Apostle of God is one sent out into the world, and who interacts primarily with totally new peoples, as did the apostle in this age at times. That is not to say an apostle would have no other function within the Church, but in fulfillment of that particular office, he operates primarily as an emissary (ambassador) sent out to represent God s Truth to new people. prophets; #4396: prophetes: an inspired speaker, with implication of understanding Bible prophecy sufficiently to be able to forcefully set forth the Truth, make Scripture come alive by practical application to life situations and foretell future developments. This particular category is suggestive of having unique practical understandings. But with it, posing a high risk of mis-statement, except for the degree of direct inspiration from God, which is often claimed, but not always present in abundance! All of these separate categories of servant prophesy in the sense of proclaiming God s Truth. They would have no value in God s Church if they did not also accurately represent the Truth. But a prophet would correspond more to what we would regard a more scholarly, insightful type, having greater understanding, and with it, the ability to be somewhat intuitive in his thinking and the ability to make Scriptures come alive. (Note: the WCG of the 1970 and later timeframe declared that there were no prophets in the Church in this age. That, if actually true, effectively cancelled out one of the important services created by God. We need to understand the reason for this declaration. Such a position would help explain our doctrinal stagnancy.) Places such as 1 st Corinthians 14:29-37 would complicate a chain-of-command authority structure in that it shows there could be and in fact were several prophets within one just that congregation. We should note from this scripture also that these prophets remain subject to peer and congregational oversight. evangelists; #2099: euaggelistes: a preacher of the gospel. Where this office differs from pastor is that it suggests more of an at large capacity, not someone exclusively involved with any particular local flock. A true evangelist, in conducting this function, would interact with the broader spectrum of calledout ones. His energy, knowledge base, and motivational ability would stir up the reticent among them. It is this motivational component primarily that sets an evangelist apart from the average minister. pastors #4166: poimen: a shepherd. One responsible for a local congregation, primarily, being more personally involved with the membership. The individual member would more closely identify personally with their pastor as opposed to the more at-large ministries. What isn t explained to this point is that any of the above can also be pastors in their home areas. That of course would create certain complications if this verse merely represented a top-down, chain-of-command authority structure. It is the local Pastor in particular that is the object of the admonition in Hebrews 13:17. teachers; #1320: didaskalos: instructor; doctor; master; teacher. This is suggestive of a person with higher levels of training, and with didactic abilities appropriate for instructing members to a higher degree of understanding. Paul represents that any person who has been in the church for a long time ought to be a teacher (Heb. 5:12) if for no other reason than experience in the Truth. Though quite similar, each of these titles suggests a nuance of function differing from one another. To one degree or another, ALL of these, including members of the congregation, can and could prophesy. (See 1 st Cor. 14:24 & 31.) NOTE: These are not just ranks within a ministerial class! For example, Paul chided the members for their failure to have attained teacher capability after being so long in the Truth! (Heb. 5:12) We are all expected to attain sufficient understanding so that we can edify others in our fellowship sphere, at least on an interpersonal level. Also consider, depending on ones service opportunities, any capable minister (servant) of God s people can function in any one of these, - 2 -

3 from time to time. The sad result of viewing these just as ranks is that God s Spirit operating in each individual can often be seriously restricted, and congregations are set up to fail by not developing, through exercise, their spiritual senses. (Hebrews 5:14) Few things will diminish a congregation s vibrancy more effectively than that! Our ministers are supposed to help us grow, not suppress our individual potential. Another consideration with a rank structure idea is this: With such a view, it is established that each minister, in order to rise in rank, must progress up thru those ranks in the process of being elevated. That would presume they possessed each and every one of the skills that each office calls for. We know that such a situation is not realistic. Not every minister has all the skill levels required. That s why God places them where they are (and should be). Not every pastor is a good evangelist. Not every evangelist would make a good prophet. These functions involve different (sometimes totally different) natural abilities. When an authority structure is the promoter, having such qualities are often not considered. That s why we had such poor success. Men were elevated on some other basis than their actual proclivities. How many evangelists did we have that never did, and perhaps couldn t, actually go out and evangelize? [Eph. 4:12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: This specifically tells us what these are all for. Providing the Saints with something of real substance. Each of them are a ministry in some way. Minister, as Christ described the office, represents being a Servant to His people. These are service functions for the greater benefit of the membership. [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: To replicate the character of Christ in each of us, not to provide a structure for a ranking system among a minister class. [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: Our growth level is intended to be right up there just under Christ. WE are to be speaking the Truth. [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. In this statement there is a nuance of understanding that is often missed due to the interposition in our minds of it being about ministerial ranks. The BODY is to edify itself, with these five kinds of functionaries assisting them in doing so. The entire Church is charged with the responsibility of overseeing and guarding the content of the Church s teachings. They were known to have been given the structural responsibility of being pillars and grounds of the Truth. (1 st Tim. 3:15) They were also to scrutinize the message content of the elders, including any apostles, and their conduct, as we read of them so commendably doing in Revelation 2:2. In the modern era, that action would have been regarded as seriously inappropriate. It was a result of the organizational model we chose to adopt and employ that we failed in our responsibility and were self-overthrown. Then again, the membership was allowed no real choice in the matter. At least, not internally. But, if that wasn t enough, we also created another office not listed, that of super-apostle, one having authority over all other lower-level apostles (of which we in fact allowed none), as we also had no (acknowledged) prophets! We should have realized, if we didn t, that this declaration was to protect the supremacy of our sole Apostle from any kind of internal challenge, even if only a perceived one. The early New Testament Church had at least seventeen named apostles concurrently, mentioned as such in its texts. Our generation would have experienced severe consternation to operate under such a situation as was common back then. But, once we understand the above offices (servant functions) in their proper role-definition, such problems evaporate. This is the challenge of our time. To wash our minds of such created concepts with the pure Word. What we haven t yet addressed is the question of rank and authority. Were each of these subject to the authority of the officeholder above them? Were all sub-apostles strictly subject to the Chief - 3 -

4 Apostle (whom we deemed only later to have been Peter)? (Of course, we didn t have multiple apostles, did we?) Were each and every evangelist subject to the authority and directives of his respective prophet? What if there were multiple prophets? Subject to which one? And, if there needed to be a chief apostle, then wouldn t there also need to be a chief prophet to avoid contradicting directives that could lead to internal disputes? (But, we cancelled-out the office of prophet not saying God did.) Was every pastor subject to his area evangelist and he in turn subject to his prophet? In practical fact, such a situation would have created organizational conflict, (can we say gridlock?), as all were under the direct supervision of and were directly accountable ultimately to the chief apostle. We should be able to see the contradictions our home-grown concepts created. But more importantly, by creating an office of chief apostle, we short-circuited the direct personal responsibility each one of us has to OUR true Apostle and High Priest, Jesus Christ, (Heb. 3:1) and to one another in our upholding God s Truth. It was alleged that our access to God s Spirit was a direct function of our loyalty to that chief apostle on earth, whom some referred to as God s Anointed. This begs the obvious question of it being available to Saints of generations past. How did God ever get along before there was us? Atop the list of deficiencies created by our later-adopted organizational model, is the obstruction of direct inspiration of any individual, minister or member. God effectively was hamstrung in His ability to give spiritual gifts ( Talents ) to anyone without the approval of the ruling class operating within the Church. For Him to have done so, and for the authority structure NOT to have approved such gift first, an obvious problem would have existed: One where the ministry would have seen it their obligation to squelch such a gift, and if not squelch-able, to disfellowship the individual. This caused a response where anyone so gifted or who came to an understanding of a point of truth, not first sanctioned by the chief seat(s), suffered repression. It also placed God in the position of not being able to openly bless His own Church with individuals whom He chose to inspire, lest He put their salvation at risk, as most would succumb to the authorities in the Church that would come down upon them, effectively making them unprofitable servants, by their not gainfully using those gifts! (See Matthew 25:14-30; Romans 12: and 1 st Corinthians 12:) The net effect of this rank-obsessed environment was the membership abandoning their responsibility before God, that of discerning and upholding God s Truth, leaving it solely to the ministry, and the loss of spiritual vibrancy among the membership, due to such sad dereliction. But it also left the individual member within the body dysfunctional, as typically he could not employ a personal Talent should God choose to give him one. RECAPITULATION: So an Apostle is one sent out into new territory to draw-in any that God may have in those places. His jurisdiction (not to suggest exclusive authority) is to work the fields that are white unto harvest. His message while functioning in that capacity might be more basic, oriented to the uninformed, not necessarily adequate for the converted and better educated Church members. One thing we should understand about this function is that he remains subordinate to who sent him out. An ambassador is not greater in authority than the governmental entity that sent him out to represent them. A Prophet is an inspired preacher, with particular insight into subjects related to current events, life situations and bible prophesy. A true prophet would inject into the prophecy stream a correlation between practical fact and world conditions. One such is regarded as a person through whom God is directly working. (Jas. 5:10; Luke 11:49; Rev. 10:7) As in 1 st Cor.14:29-37 we read of what was spoken of as a relatively normal situation, messages by two and more prophets during a service. In this described situation, it involved possible multi-lingual presentations; that these local prophets were self-controlled, (logical / sensible) and weren t necessarily officially ordained by any authority structure. Verse 37 alludes to even a self-assessed situation! An Evangelist, on the other hand, would inject into the ministerial services an energy and broader overview that would be more motivational in tone. Such would operate more in an at large capacity, his field of endeavor, to motivate congregations near and far into having greater enthusiasm in reaching the world with the good news of the coming Kingdom of God

5 Any of the above would routinely serve in more of an at large capacity, and any local minister could at times function in any or all of these capacities, if they had the ability. (see 1 st Timothy 2:7 & 2 nd Tim. 1:11) They do not represent authority positions over any of their peers. They are answerable to those who sent them and whom they minister unto, those served being required always to search the scriptures whether these things be so. It is the abrogation of this from below monitoring activity, knowing them BY their fruits, that caused us to commit the greatest self-disservice. It left us vulnerable to apostasy when it was imposed. And in time, our house imploded. Now as we move to the Pastor function, we begin to encounter more of an authority position, though primarily a local one. Being entrusted with the oversight of a particular flock, he is more directly responsible for their care and in what they are being exposed to. He watches over the flock. His is the level where interdiction against destructive elements would come into play. While he would serve them, the flock itself would and should monitor his services and messages, to assure he also remains on true course. Many flocks have been destroyed as a result of their failure to adequately monitor their ministry, rather, knuckling under his impositions. Many examples of overbearing ministers have been documented down through history. Not the least of which is the Diotrephes situation in the Epistle of 3 rd John. Here a local minister blocked access to his own congregation of even the most highly credentialed elder. We aren t told why, other than his obsession with pre-eminent control. John, acting in an apostolic or evangelistic role, for some reason, was a perceived threat to the man s preeminent prestige. It is incumbent on all members to assure that interaction with other congregations and at-large ministers is maintained, to keep the broader picture well in mind. Becoming too local, too internally focused, too exclusive can also be detrimental to the health of a congregation. The lowly Teacher may be the most enigmatic of the five. Here we have a function that can be provided by any person in the Church. An apostle can be a teacher, as can the average member. This is a person who, by reason of longevity in the Church, or by having been exposed to the Church s teachings along with in-depth personal Bereanizing and extra studies, understands the Word sufficiently to be able to bring up the understanding level of fellow Saints. Time-in ought to provide some degree of competence in this function, as Paul explains in Hebrews 5:12. (Christ was a teacher also: John 3:2 & 13:13) Perhaps it would be remiss to not mention one other obvious service function. Though not listed in either Ephesians 4 or 1 st Corinthians 12, there is the office of Deacon. Though found only five times in the King James Version, the Greek word diakoneo occurs some thirty-seven times. Diakonia / diakonos occurs another sixty-five times. It is more often translated minister, serve / servant, and administer. This office is shown to be more of an assistant to another, such as serving the needs of the Saints (the congregation). It does not necessarily allude to anyone in a speaking capacity, though it could. Paul, when stating I magnify my office, used the word diakonia in Romans 11:13. This too would suggest our narrowly defined authority structure leaves much aside. It would more logically suggest that anyone can fulfill a service function. After all, it was the apostles who were serving tables, to the detriment of their other duties, that got their deacon replacements nominated by the congregation. (Acts 6:2) Imagine that! A Deacon replaced an Apostle in function in the early Church! Wrap your mind around that! If Deacon is the lowest rank, and Apostle the highest, how could that be? But all of these, working together, are not to establish an authority structure within the ministry to facilitate their consolidation of power, facilitating their over-lording of the membership, but to provide a growth environment in which all can better themselves in genuine and uninhibited service to others. Now while the WCG touted the structure that we came to employ as being of God and based on this Ephesians 4 (and 1 st Cor. 12:28) passage, we in fact ignored so many of the New Testament examples and situations. In practical fact, OUR concept of this structure was distinctly UNLIKE what Ephesians 4 describes. Our version allowed for one Apostle, and one only, where the early Church functioned with several (17 are named) all at one time. Though later alleging that Peter was chief among equals, there at least were other apostles, without detriment to the overall function of the emerging Church. With us, such a thing would not do! We could not tolerate there being more than just one apostle

6 Then, when it came to Prophets, we alleged that there were no prophets in this Era. None were allowed, and none were sought, recognized or encouraged. To do so would have caused a major conundrum internally, under the claim of disloyalty. Under this proclamation, the Church was denied the benefit of such a service, and no possible successor could be groomed. We didn t need a successor anyway, (we thought) as the end would come within the lifetime of that chief apostle that we had. We were assured that he would live to lead us into the Kingdom of God. Gerald Waterhouse made this clear in his eleven around the world evangelizing tours, emphatically declaring it as an absolute! (A transcript of one such message in 1980 is available. Contact ). Then the end did come, but not the end as we d visualized it. The apostle died, but not before appointing a successor who had none of the qualifications an astute membership would have expected. Time proved the situation to be the unmitigated disaster that it was. But at the time, we were hamstrung under the governmental concepts we had come to accept. We weren t ready to meet the challenges that then came along! The above referenced passage in 1 st Corinthians 12 is interesting. It also provides a list, but one distinctly unlike Ephesians 4. The Corinthians passage lists a first, a second and a third. Would that suggest that there are no intermediate authority positions between these numbered ones? First is apostle, second is prophet, but third is teacher. (as we saw above, teacher could be anyone, even a regular member even an apostle (1 st Tim. 2:7)) Where in this tight chain are evangelist and pastor? Where is deacon? And helps (assistants) are way down the list, and governments (plural indicating administrations the word supposedly establishing the authority structure) is second from the bottom, below assistants and above only tongues speaker. But the obvious questions or objections to these as establishing an authority structure idea ranks within the Church ministry were not appreciated. With apostle being first, (and we had only one of those), and prophet second, (and we had none of those), our authority structure, if that s what it is, would have consisted of sole-apostle presiding over a lower echelon of just teachers. Otherwise, we must conclude that documenting an authority structure is not the underlying point of these passages at all! But, in all of this, whether you ascribe to a formal authority structure or not, we are still ignoring the most important establishment in God s Church, its membership base. God specifically gave a function to the average converted member, one specifically stated in 1 st Timothy 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. God ordained that the so called bottom level of membership be the ones to monitor the conduct of their ministry. Paul, in writing to a young minister reminds him that his conduct must be respectful of their mandate. That he wasn t to in any way operate aloof to them, nor deny them their God-ordained task, of being the stabilizing element within the Church. Revelation 2:2-6 exposes this mandate in action. I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. These were carefully examining the legitimacy of their brethren, even their apostles, and exposing the frauds. They had no qualms about examining the credentials even of their apostles, primarily through their doctrine and service examples, and publishing their findings. Though eventually slacking off in their zeal in doing so, they at least at the time hated the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which represented the echelon of administration that would eventually rise-up, creating a two-tier system that would effectively deny them their necessary function in the Church. That being: Upholders of the Truth! We know the rest of the story, it s just that we might not have recognized the dynamics that caused it all to happen the way it did! Blessed is he who has ears to hear

7 C h a p t e r T w o The words of Paul the Apostle, Insightful as few others were, identify a Common Flaw found in Religious Organizations the world over: that of Inappropriate Ministerial Esteem. Are we willing to Accept his Corrections. We should all consider the first three chapters of 1 st Corinthians. That section of scripture is very, very applicable to our time. It directly deals with what we all tend to do, if not paying close attention. We did it for years in the WCG s heyday, and it led to catastrophe for those who would not / could not shake it off. Those chapters deal with our human carnality, the way we are, which loves to look up to men, and to varying degree distract or diminish our identification with Christ, our True Apostle, High Priest and Master. The tendency is always a danger, and accounts for the disillusionment of so many supporters of days long ago. We, to a large degree, did it to ourselves. For our convenience, I copy the passages in question from 1 st Corinthians first three chapters: [1] Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, [2] Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: [3] Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. [4] I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; [5] That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; [6] Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: [7] So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: [8] Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. [10] Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. [11] For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; [15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. [16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. [17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. [18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. [22] For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; [24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [26] For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: [27] But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; [28] And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his presence. [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: [31] That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord st Corinthians 2 [1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. [2] For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. [3] And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. [4] And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: - 7 -

8 [5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. [6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: [7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. [10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. [11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. [16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ st Corinthians 3 [1] And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. [2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. [8] Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. [9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. [10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. [11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. [16] Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? [17] If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. [18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. [20] And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. [21] Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; [22] Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; [23] And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. Now, for brevity, I abridge the highlighted sections, adding comments: [1:5] That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; That enrichment is Godgiven, it is not something that we access only thru some minister or some organization. And, utterance is God-ordained. He wasn t talking to an exclusive minister class here, but directly to and about the membership. The members are commended for their utterance (speaking out). Knowledge also. It comes from God. It isn t limited to the pronouncements of any one human-level authority. [6] Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: Here again, God s truly called are spokesmen for His Truth. They should develop their God-given Talents and understanding, not being kept silent in deference to another man or ministry. [7] So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: The gift in question being those spiritual Talents God invests in each of us. We, for too long buried our gifts in a napkin at the insistence of the organization. This is a dangerous deed, considering Matthew 25: Failure to develop God-given Talents can cause the recipient to lose even that which he has! Salvation itself! Too many organizations work to inhibit real growth among members. It is the one-man-only mentality that feeds this offense. [8] Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Blame? What blame? Blame for not doing what the previous verse talks about: Using ones Talents. Flurry, Pack, Wienland, Meredith, yes, even UCG, all suppress members in their growth and exercise of their God-given - 8 -

9 Talents and senses. It s endemic to the culture. God finds little use for that! We can gage that from the lack of growth. Most remnants are busy trying to draw members out from other organizations, not drawing disciples from society in general. Most of what we put out has no present appeal. It is filled with church-speak that may appeal to ex-wcg people, but isn t something that God can use to bring-in new people. Our one-and-only types somehow just can t see that! And, we all suffer for the experience! [9] God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul begins here to remind his hearers where our anchor point should be. Not in any minister of His (presuming the man IS a true minister not all who claim to be are!). [10] Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. All of these exclusivist ministries create nothing but divisions and discord between and among members. How much of that must we experience before we see that? Most of our divisions are political, not so much doctrinal. We have created a sub-doctrine of one-man-ism, that our approval by Christ must be through our affiliation and our total devotion to that one-man! Thus, our divisions are assured! God hates that! [11] For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Here s where Paul gets specific! Here is the source of the condemned divisions! [12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. An important point of interest here: These WERE TRUE ministers of God. People today do the same thing, do so even with men who may not be true ministers. This shows us that it isn t just a matter of identifying WHO a true minister is. The act of doing this (holding an inappropriate regard for) a minister / ministry, even a true one, is fundamental CARNALITY. Paul makes that point four times in four verses in the next chapter! The way we are (or were) is CARNALITY. God had to close down the WCG because we wouldn t stop being THAT WAY! [13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? [30] But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: Our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption is thru Christ, not from our affiliation with any organization. This is a problem we have long failed to recognize. And, so long as we take the same old approach, we perpetuate the carnality of our human way of thinking [2:5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. The WORD should be our primary source of understanding, not the writings of men. We can learn what we can from men, but God must be the One to get credit. We tend to elevate the esteem of flawed men, thinking that we do God service. The power of God is His Spirit, which is not given to us through the agency of any man or organization. [12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Again, recognizing the source. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Our access to God s Spirit is direct, not in any way the credit of our organizations. It seems, our organizations work more to quench God s Spirit than anything [3:1] And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. Many, if not most, of our organizations deliberately maintain their members in an under-developed state, for purposes of control. This CARNALITY is rarely if ever brought out and preached. It is too detrimental to their elevated esteem posture, so much a part of the old Worldwide way. [2] I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. Ditto the above verse. [3] For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? The very act of strongly identifying with one man automatically guarantees strife and divisions between members. This is the real problem Paul is attempting to address. We have experienced this for decades, yet it still hasn t registered with people. Their faith is based on the wrong thing! [4] For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? This is most amazing. Here we had members identifying with TRUE ministers, singling out and preferring one as opposed to another, and Paul calls that carnality, which is insightful, as that s exactly what it is. What is it when we identify with an imposter or over-lording type, which so many tend to be once they get their following? How much more the offense against God? [5] Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? These WERE True ministers! That didn t diminish the wrong that these members were doing! [6] I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Placing credit where it truly belongs. [7] So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Again! [9] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. We are laborers together WITH God (not with His one-and-only minister). God works His work in us, if we are co-operative

10 [10] According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. The ministry AND WE are called upon to build-upon the foundation. So many want to float-in, not really putting any effort into their spiritual development. Just identifying with their favorite minister doesn t do it. So many in the WCG learned to be that way back when. It was a spiritual tar pit, one of the reasons God had to close it down. (Yes, WE are partly to blame.) Yet, so many still don t see! [11] For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. We (of that mind-set) want to lay again and re-build on another foundation. One built on the pre-eminence of a man. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; No matter how grand the edifice, or how humble, IF it discourages the Fruit God wants to develop in His people, it risks being under-blessed. Haven t we seen too much of that already? Why do we continually try to go there? [13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. All of these guys see their work as God s express doing, and all others NOT! The fruits should be allowed to speak. But, we tend to overlook the absence of real fruits. We see one work drawing members away from another as a fruitful endeavor. While in reality, it is rank divisionism. [16] Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Another important detail not fully amplified in our self-elevating ministries. They think THEY are the Temple, and we only as we enter their domain. Well, some day they ll be gone, and where will God s Saints be then? [17] If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. We have defiled and continue to defile God s Temple (His People) by drawing-into it defiling teachings such as the supremacy of Peter and one-man-ism. There is only ONE One-man in existence in the sphere we re talking about. It exists only at the Christ level. Whenever we get below Him, the organizational chart expands quickly to multiple witnesses and servants. The ugly factor of the one-man idea is that we regard that one-man as being second only to Christ in authority. That was perhaps the most vile of our offenses to Christ in the WCG days. So many put themselves in-between the member and their LORD. An inappropriate place for any mere man to place himself in the eyes of his followers. You should have had sufficient exposure to this in the PCG. This should be something that you know. It isn t a matter of finding another Gerald type (or even an HWA) to follow into the Kingdom. As I said on the phone, it doesn t work that way. None of us will be swept into God s Kingdom on the apron strings of, or in the wake of, some minister. How many continue to kid themselves in that regard? They seem to think, just latch onto some man, whom we regard highly, and we ve got it made! We re Kingdom worthy, that s all we need to do! It doesn t work that way. [21] Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Does this amplify my point? What does it MEAN, that all things are yours? Is our personal relationship with Christ sufficient for attainment of His Kingdom? Are we to support those we find to truly be DOING God s Work, not surrendering ourselves again under some other thumb of control and suppression of development? (WE are Christ s workmanship (Eph. 2:10 and verses 3:6-9 above)) When THEY suppress such growth as God inspires and desires that we labor to develop, they resist the very God Himself. This is no small matter! See my article on Resist Overlording and Talents and God s Church. [22] Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; Again, what does that mean, all are yours? Paul says it TWICE! [23] And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's. The True organizational chart of God s Church. Notice there is no minister placed between us and Christ and the Father! Above, reference is made to doctrinal defilement. To be more specific, I want to set-out what that defilement was and what continues to carry on in too many of our WCG-educated people. We set forth the premise in the mid-70 s (especially after GTA s expulsion in 1978) that God always works thru just one man. (Emphasis on the one.) With that, we conjured up an explanation of Church Organization that brought-in the Petrine Supremacy premise, the faulty doctrine that the Catholic Church is established upon. We once wrongly alleged, The only thing the Catholic Church has right is government! The primary reason for this was to dissuade anyone from looking anywhere else, maintaining loyalty to the apostle. It worked relatively OK as long as he lived, but when control got into the hands of the reprobate regime, it proved disastrous! Our unwillingness to repent of that error brought a collapse of the organization. Our rigid grip on the concepts of government that we accepted, caused in us a hesitancy to see, let alone take appropriate action against what was being imposed. We determined in our minds that no action was ever appropriate. So, the pillars and grounds of the truth, as the membership is called, failed to exhibit any strength to stand and defend the Truth, as we were first delivered it. As a result, God s true Saints had to scramble for another affiliation, but unfortunately,

11 most of the alternatives preserved the general idea of inerrancy and supremacy of the preeminent leader, as before. Christ s true preeminence was again dissed big time, left to stand in the shadow of some man! Yet, we couldn t see the effect, because we couldn t discern the cause! We embraced the carnality of minister elevation, thinking of men more highly than we ought to think. This causes members to be polarized against one-another. It causes members to hold a low regard for other members who believe identically, but who may affiliate differently, the very opposite of what Christ wants of His disciples and Saints. It causes interpersonal member contempt. If you don t think as highly of my man as I do, you are not my brother. The very essence of 1 st John 1:7-11 is violated. Malachi 3:16 is not practiced! Any who do such in some organizations are summarily booted out! This was the culture that developed in the WCG and it continues today among its former peoples. It could be correctly called Institutional Carnality! It is a corrosive to Christian fellowship and to the True Faith. We MUST repent of it, thoroughly. Think what the scene would be like if Flurryites and Hulmeites, Packites and Meredithians were all to show up together in the place of safety. What a row that would be! (And, GF and RM are likely not going to be there, just on account of their frailty of age! Imagine a power struggle at the place of safety!) Think of what the Kingdom would be like if such attitudes were to be brought over into the Kingdom. Obviously, there will have to be some major repenting among these many who still think that way. I am inclined to consider that many are going to have to go to a place of final training, on account of their embracing this WCG injected defilement. They will have to be re-trained in order to be made kingdom worthy. Some may even have to go into the kingdom still physical, in order to complete the process of ridding themselves of that faulty mindset. The sectarianism that exists still is a long way from the uncomplicated love of the brethren that God requires of His ecclesia. Is God going to have to divide and diminish ALL of our organizations and ministries who do this kind of thing, and set His followers OUT on their own in order to get them to see their error? (Not because of them so much, but because of US!) The True Philadelphia Church is promised that they will need to go no more OUT, (Rev. 3:12) suggesting that they HAD TO go out in order to stay within His True Church, in order to be the kind of responsive follower He requires. Which organization has there been in the last quarter century that hasn t experienced splits? Paul s question again, Is Christ divided? Is He powerless to stop what s happening, or is He going to let our way of thinking play itself out so that, in the end, we ll have learned what s wrong with it and to not BE that way?! The problem in the Corinthian congregation was in what they were doing with True ministers. Our version of a similar thing is done, except identifying men of low proficiency, doctrinally. Some of them of very doubtful qualifications. Most leaders do what they do for personal preeminence! God broke up the WCG for its political errors. We do Him no service by trying to replicate that contaminated structure. Despite this one area of concern that Paul presents, the doctrine was reasonably good, but the political situation, and the condition it created among and between members, was grossly un-christian: profoundly un-philadelphian! To this day, ministers find themselves unable to work together without jealousies, resentments and a certain contempt for one another. The vast majority of the church s splits have been caused by ministers. Knuckling down and intensifying an identification with a single ministry is NOT any guarantee of making it into His Kingdom. Instead, getting ourselves straight in our personal relationship with Christ and with one another is what we need to be doing. This is our time of testing. It s time we graduated from the old elementary school and learn to use what we ve been given as God wants us to do, with and by His power working in us. It s time we began to use what God has given to us, as Paul said in Hebrews 5:12. His lament was that after all this time, we OUGHT to be teachers. Instead, they weren t even good listeners. He felt he needed to teach them again, repeating the milquetoast subjects, as they were yet babes. How much does that apply in our generation? It seems to describe the majority, and even if a person is motivated, the organization typically quenches any initiative! That is another ramification of inappropriate levels of ministry esteem: Quenching the Fruits of God s Spirit. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

12 C h a p t e r T h r e e As the Early Church grew, various functions were identified and given names. Those named functions were later re-defined to support a growing idea that Selected Saints were Ordained into an Authoritarian Structure. We will consider how the word Deacon was used to support such thinking. The New Testament was written in Greek. The word deacon used in the King James translation of the bible (KJV) is not a true translation of the Greek. It is a transliteration -- taking a word from one language into another as it sounds without translation. (Elohim is an example of Hebrew to English transliteration. The translation of Elohim (a Hebrew plural word) in the KJV is God or gods.) The Greek word deakonos (Strong's Concordance #1249) in the KJV is transliterated deacon only five times *. It is correctly translated servant three or more times. Servant is actually the most accurate translation. It is translated as minister over a dozen times. But, the word minister in our time conveys a different meaning than did deaconos in the first century. What Does Deacon Mean? Under a modern interpretation of what the word minister indicates, it can leave the reader with a different impression of what is meant. To illustrate the deceptiveness of this transliteration more glaringly, the word deacon below is restored in a number of passages for effect in these texts where other words were translated:...jesus Christ was a deacon of the circumcision for the truth of God... (Rom. 15:8)...is Christ therefore the deacon of sin? (Gal. 2:17) Who also hath made us able deacons of the new testament... (2 nd Cor. 3:6)...approving ourselves as the deacons of God... (2 nd Cor. 6:4) 1 st Timothy Chapter 3 * Ironically, the Greek word deakonos is never translated deacon in the singular. Both places in which the KJV has singular deacon (1 st Timothy 3:10,12), it is rendered in the English as a five word phrase the office of a deacon which is in Greek deakonea (Strong's #1248 or #1249) correctly referring to a ministry or service. (The five words in this phrase are only the one word in Greek.) Deakonos is what a person who serves is; Deakonea is the service he gives, not an office that he occupies. The plural word deacons is used three times in the KJV; Philippians 1:1; 1 st Timothy 3:8 & 12. Note that Philippians 1:1 shows the group of leaders of the Philippian church as bishops and deacons. The correct translation for bishops should be over-seers (correct translation is given in some KJV margins) and ministers (or servants) for deacons. The false translation bishops (Greek episcopos ) is correctly translated overseers in Acts 20:28. So in 1 st Tim. 3:8 it should read Likewise must the servants (or ministers) be grave... Paul says...i was made a deacon according to the Then we see that 1 st Tim. 3:10 should be translated gift of the grace of God... (Eph. 3:7) and let these first also be proved, then let them serve, being blameless. The Hebrew/Greek...wherefore I Paul am made a deacon. (Col. 1: Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green reads...let them 23 & 25) minister, being blameless.... Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but deacons by whom ye believed... (1 st Also in verse 13: For they that have served well Cor. 3:5)

13 purchase to themselves a good degree... Interlinear Bible reads...ministered well.... The It is clear that what is being described is men who were servants of Christ or ministers. There is no such thing as the office of deacon or office of bishop in true scripture. (For true biblical familytype government see the Hillebrenner article Sent People, Older People and Servants which explains the truth about apostles, elders and deacons (words used in the King James Bible)). What we should allow to factor into our thinking is the fact that these seven deacons stood-in for apostles! Did the lowest rank replace the highest? The Echelons of Service In that God is consistently the same, we see in Numbers 8:24-26 two groups serving in the temple; a younger set (25-50 years old) who serve the Temple and an older set (over 50) who were serving to keep the charge. Likewise in 1 st Timothy 3 we have servants (deacons / ministers) and overseers (the elder brethren serving as ministers). John also speaks of these two groups in the converted church families. I write unto you fathers because you have known him from the beginning; I write unto young men because you have overcome the wicked one... (1 st John 2:13-14) Peter writing, now years old, having become elderly, also makes it plain: The elders among you I exhort, who am also an elder..., likewise ye younger, submit to the elder. Yea all be subject one to another...with humility... (1 st Peter 5:1 & 5) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. As the God of the Old Testament, He inspired the command you shall rise up before the hoary head (a true elder), and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God. (Leviticus 19:32) Is it any less required of us in this age? Is Deacon an Office? A tenacious tradition holds that there is an office of deacon in 1 st Timothy 3:10. This scripture is almost always read at ordinations. The seven of Acts 6 are traditionally called the first deacons. In the original scripture (Greek) there is no word office in 1 st Timothy 3, not for deacon nor for bishop *. In the Sabbatarian Church of God tradition there were never ordained Bishops. Rather, a tradition of elders were ordained using 1 st Timothy 3. The term elder is not found in 1 st Timothy 3. ** This is because many of the converted older men, true elders (over 50 as per Num. 8), as a body were to be overseers (falsely translated bishops) of the congregation, thus insuring a family, (non-dictatorial) atmosphere. Not all elders wanted to be overseers, because it was work! (1 st Timothy 3:1) The Seven of Acts 6 This passage is interesting, in that it illustrates the gross error of tradition. Regarding Acts 6, from Encyclopedia Britannica we find: It is urged that the traditional view which regards the seven as deacons is untenable because the term deacon is never used in the narrative, and there is no reference to the office in the Acts. 1 The King James Bible (KJV) was translated under the eye of the king of England who was put forth as the head of the evident church instead of the pope. A hierarchal church authority pyramid was retained. Hence we have the terms bishops and deacons used in the KJV. First of all we need to make clear what was the underlying catalyst of Acts 6. Notice Acts 6:1... a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministry (same Greek word as ministry of Acts 6:4). Notice carefully that it was all the Grecians, not just the widows that were murmuring. We also need to note that the Grecians at this early date were circumcised as Jews (either ethnic Jews or circumcised Gentiles who had become religious Jews), (Acts 2:5-10) Many people of the land became Jews. (Esther 8:17). Uncircumcised Gentiles were not yet in the Church nor had any yet received the Holy Spirit. That would come more than decade later. The last named of the seven is noted as a proselyte (a circumcised Gentile). 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 th edition (1911), Presbyter, pg. 281, paragraph 2e. (or go to 1911encyclopedia.org)

14 Neglected in What Manner? What exactly was the problem? How were the Grecian widows neglected? What was the daily ministry in which they were neglected? With the non-scriptural chapter break, we miss the flow of what is happening. We see in Acts 5:42 that the apostles were teaching and preaching daily in the temple and in every house. This was the daily ministry. There were about 5,000 or more disciples (Acts 4:4). Then in Acts 6:1 we see disciples multiplying. The teaching from house to house would indicate a lot of houses to visit to accommodate 5,000 disciples. We don't have the details as to whether the apostles split up to go to different houses or not. But the daily teaching ministry to new disciples must have been totally time consuming for the apostles. Furthermore, from Jewish tradition, the men would have been taught more thoroughly. The women would often be cooking or doing domestic duties and would learn from the men later. today, most bible teaching is done with at least the teacher sitting at a table to lay open the Bible. Tables would be needed as they would have to roll out scrolls and not codexes (books as we have them). Some of the disciples quite logically had scrolls also to roll out on tables. Most of these scrolls would undoubtedly have been in Hebrew rather than from the Greek OT Septuagint. This caused the Greek widows to be left out in the teaching and preaching service. Notice Acts 6:1... a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministry. But we see that the apostles saw the need to be freed from this daily teaching ministry so they could go abroad and do the ministry of the word (Logos), verse 4. Here, in both cases the Greek word ministry/ministration is the exact same Greek; deakonea!! But, we have already seen the most accurate translation of this word is service or ministry! What was this ministry of the word? The meaning of 1 st Cor. 14:35 is not totally clear, but we know that in Luke 10:39-40 this was the case. Also the Grecian widows may have only known scriptures through the Greek Septuagint translation and not Hebrew. Teaching would require men that knew the scriptures well to teach of Jesus and the gospel. It would also require men who had been with Jesus during his teaching. One word in Acts 6, the word tables in verse 2 has led many to believe that here is shown that the office of deacon involves doing only physical duties. The denial of this was cited in Encyclopedia Britannica above. But what was meant by serving tables? And how does it relate to the neglecting of not all the Grecians, but just their widows. (That would be those who don t have husbands!) We are not told. Most widows are good at cooking up food and setting it on a table, so it wasn t about food service. What was really going on there? How many houses would be required to visit 5,000 people? With 100 people to a house, it would mean 50 houses. Remember the Grecian widows were neglected in the daily ministry; the daily teaching of these newly baptized, converted disciples. This daily teaching would obviously be done with people sitting down at tables in houses. Even This was different than teaching finer points to already baptized disciples. As we see in Acts 4:29-31 the prayers were for boldness to preach the word. The Word was to preach that Jesus was the Messiah and about His crucifixion and resurrection. This was evangelism to the world, which was often done in synagogues of foreign cities and in public forums. Boldness would not be needed to teach baptized disciples. Boldness was needed to preach to the world. The apostles (those sent out) were told to go into the world and preach the gospel and be witnesses beginning with tribes of Israel. The apostles called for men full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom to teach and preach locally in Jerusalem to the new disciples. They would need men well educated in Hebrew and Greek scriptures so the Grecian widows could better understand. Also note the seven were full of the Holy Spirit before they had hands laid on them! The Seven's Preaching Multiplies Converts Due to the seven wise teachers chosen, the word of God increased and number of disciples multiplied greatly (Acts 6:7). Then, what do we see the first

15 named of the seven doing? Stephen did great wonders and miracles (vs 8). This got him hauled before a Jewish council (vs 12). The whole of chapter 7 then shows his evangelizing to the council until they stoned him. (This was a whole lot more than just waiting on tables serving food as is the modern misconception.) 2 Then the church was scattered. Where the last five of the seven went, we have no record. But what Philip, the second named of the seven, did is welldetailed in Acts 8:4, 5-7, 12, He evangelized powerfully! Philip later went to Samaria preaching the gospel (evangelizing), doing mighty miracles and baptizing. Philip is then directed by God to the Ethiopian eunuch, whom he baptized. Philip is then spirited away. There is only one term in the book of Acts applied for the seven, and it represents what the first two, Stephen and Philip, are recorded as doing soon after having hands laid on them. The only term applied to any of the seven in Acts is that of evangelist:... Philip the evangelist which was one of the seven... (Acts 21:8) Clearly then, the King James Version of the Bible has given us a nonbiblical tradition of false church offices. An evangelist was one traveling and preaching, it was not an office or rank. Do the work of an evangelist (2 nd Timothy 4:5). Elders by Attainment of Age ** 1 st Timothy 5:1-2 clearly shows that elders (Greek; presbyteros, masculine presbuteras, feminine) are what old (elderly) church men and women are. (compare 1 st Peter 5:1,5 (Peter was by now in his 60 s.)) Overseership (KJV "bishoprick ) the correct translation is overseers as in Acts 20:28)) is what seasoned church elders (Christian uncles and grandfathers) are to do serving the church as a family group (Titus 1:5-7) Ordain should be translated appoint, (perhaps in the 2 In a letter from Ignatius to Polycarp, a direct disciple of the last living Apostle John, we find this quote: It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. Ignatius, in the early second century, makes clear distinction between a servant as in the sense of a waiter at a banquet, and a servant (deacon) who proclaims God s Truth within the Church setting. This statement reflects the understanding of the early Church sense of consecrate ) and these were to be selected from among those who accepted Christ as Messiah). Elder women should be teachers of married women. Laying on of hands is a Biblical Doctrine, done by people with God's Spirit. Thirteen different Greek words are inconsistently translated ordain or ordained in attempt to show such a ceremony as a doctrine establishing an ecclesiastical office. A large portion of today's true Church of God hails from the ministry of Herbert Armstrong, Per his autobiography, his first wife, Loma, was healed by laying on of hands by an older couple (a man and woman), elders (older people). Herbert had hands laid on him by the whole congregation, in sending him out to preach the gospel. There is no office identified in 1 st Timothy 3 or Acts 6. Rather there are older converted men in a congregation overseeing the congregation. (Acts 20:17 & 28) In some useful manner, they and the younger men are all servants of Jesus Christ, the head of every man. Concluding Considerations So, from this brief expose, we can see that our perceptions of what a deacon is, and what one does, has been dramatically altered from what the pure Word sets before us. This is understandable when we factor in the political establishment that was gradually introduced into the Churches of God over the centuries. That ecclesiastical structure existed in pagan religious organizations in the early years of the Church, but was resisted during its first era. (Rev, 2:2-6) As time went on, their love faded and the method and its doctrinal component gained increasing acceptance among believers, to their shame. (Rev. 2:15) The earliest years of the Church of God in the modern age imitated the approach and simplicity of the original disciples. With growth, a new necessity was seen as evident, but the gradual reacceptance of those worldly Nicolaitan characteristics in time precipitated the demise of the organization. In large part, that was due to the suppression of true and loving service in ways that Jesus wants to develop in each of us.

16 C h a p t e r F o u r Many Biblical Examples exist of Political Situations within the Church. One notable situation was the Congregational Regime related by the beloved Elder and Apostle John as he concluded his Third Epistle. In these latter decades, especially as the Church of God grew, becoming its most significant work in centuries, then when coming under extreme duress, both from without and especially from within, a concept of government was developed to meet the challenges of the times. Not all members were entirely comfortable with what developed, and not all were treated equitably as it all played out. But comfortable or not, it impacted all of us in rather profound ways, and forms at least a part of the methodology under which we operate today. Partly due to concerns of aberrant doctrines being brought among the membership and partly due to concerns that wrong leadership might take control of the Church or at least draw away a following a concept of government developed with intent to protect the flock. With commendable intentions, the Church made itself vulnerable to being taken over, if not widely, at least locally, by a certain few who coveted the prestige and power inherent with the ministry. This was not new. In fact, in a notable situation related by the Elder Apostle John, he and his epistles were excluded, being refused admittance, as were those who appreciated his fellowship in at least one local congregation. Not Receiving the Brethren! The Elder John relates this situation with brief but potent implication in his third epistle: 9: I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10: Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Though we d like to regard this as a rare and isolated situation, too many have, in differing situations over the centuries, found it to be an unpleasant reality and it still is with us today! Though this phenomenon can often be found within individual local congregations, even more significant is its adaptation into the methods of operation of many separate organizations that have come into being in this generation. Organizations that form around the ministry of one preeminent individual, and even those that have formed around groups of ministers can often exhibit a similar exclusivist disdain toward all others. The basis of fellowship isn t so much the content of ones beliefs, or the indwelling of God s Spirit, as it is a person s organizational affiliation. There may be Spirit imbued people outside of their particular organization, but many have decided to not have anything but a negative regard for them! The Authority Factor We can conclude that the Apostle John s problem with Diotrephes wasn t based on doctrinal matters, though perhaps that could be inferred, but more likely it was the issue of authority. His prating against them being based on a repulsion of the challenge to his hold on his personal turf that a wider fellowship might pose. John, of all people, in both his writings and in person, represented the love of and toward Christ that put Him in first position, focusing on His supremacy, obviously lessening the inappropriately high level of esteem toward any self-promoting intermediarian. John recognized the danger of any man setting himself as a sole authority in any Church. Because to do that, one has to stand in an intermediary position between the individual Saint and his Lord. The action of casting them out of the church speaks volumes! It strongly suggests a belief on the part of the membership that affiliation with and the acceptance within this one enclosed group has direct bearing on ones possession of the Spirit of God. It wouldn t have been effective if the mem-

17 bership didn t believe that. People are intimidated into conforming to the dictates of their esteemed leader, acquiescing to his every rule in order to maintain their standing with God!! It is alleged that being insubordinate (independent / disloyal / rebellious / dissident, etc.) to that one chief leader puts ones salvation in jeopardy. In this we can see how the hold works. Way too many remained with the apostate organization of the Worldwide Church of God under this perception. Long after its (obvious to most) repudiation of all it once stood for, people hung on and on, refusing to walk away, offering the explanation that this is the Church I was called-into, or God will intervene and fix this problem. Most believing firmly that to walk out would put their salvation and their access to God s Spirit in jeopardy, when in fact, the very opposite was more the case! (see Revelation 3:12) But such is the hold intermediarians have on their followers. They present themselves as God s official spokesmen (or in some cases, spokesman ) suggesting that their official proclamations carry the very authority of God in Heaven. To challenge their local dictates is seen as an offense against God! This works especially well when members effectively lay down their Bibles and discontinue taking the Berean approach. This also is a method of operation. I recall well a pointed conversation with a speakin deacon, who admitted to doing this. He felt no continuing obligation to continue proving all things as we re pointedly commanded to do. I was somewhat aghast at his adamancy! He strongly felt and freely admitted that, having once proved WHO the true Apostle was, it no longer was incumbent upon him to prove anything further! His quest was over, his lock on the eternal Truth by now was a foregone conclusion. It made his spiritual life s routine much easier, but in doing so, he put himself in a danger far greater than we would ever have guessed at the time. Non-solid Ground ways than one! The primary facilitator of his disillusionment being his reluctance to restore his method of operation back to a Berean approach and to follow scripture rather than men. It was too long since he d done that. He had himself become Diotrephized! In reality, his faith was mis-based! There is an area in everyone s Christian life where we re eventually compelled to evaluate what drives us. Not everyone looks into the depths of his or her personal sub-conscious with the same clarity of mind. When new to the faith, this consideration can pose too formidable a challenge. But we who are supposedly of full age and in whom God is working are eventually put in a position where we must consider and answer the matter. It s what we had to face during our Worldwidian experiences, without necessarily realizing it. Many fear to directly consider it, but when and IF we are to ever attain the level of maturity appropriate to our true calling, it s something that must be answered, and once answered, confidently followed! Paul penned these words to Christians at Corinth. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2 nd Corinthians 13:5) He wrote this to challenge people who for all intents and purposes were presumed to be Christians. But of apparent Christians, he asks them something important: that they should examine themselves as to their true situation. This wasn t urged upon non-professing types, but upon Christians! It establishes that unless Christ is within a person, thru the indwelling of His Spirit, then that person is a reprobate!! But, in many situations, the reprobates appear much the same as the true! Some may appear even better than the true! What makes the difference? Paul s urging shows that there is an evident proof that s demonstrable! The key is found in the answer to the question, Who do we really follow and imitate, Christ, or a minister? Would Christ do what we do? Needless to say, when the Church began its Others Will Gladly Tell You! wholesale exchange of doctrines, this fellow was In a Diotrephesian culture, there s always someone thrown into a tailspin! He, being in a double bind, all too willing to declare another s true status, and because at that time to challenge any changes, his they do so by evaluating a person s perceived deaconship also would have been forfeit. So the loyalty to their local Diotrephes. Anyone of their new intermediary with its organizational structure fellowship not as fully committed to their discipline prevailed on him. He was soon gone, in more as they deem appropriate, are declared unconverted

18 as they define conversion. Such is the nature of the situation. 3 Rather, as people mature in the Faith, they will be found living more by Faith than by simple sight, or in other words, just doing what they re told without due consideration. What living by Faith accomplishes in this area is the removal of any intermediary that stands between the individual and his God and following God where-ever He leads. This is a response or condition on the part of the individual that gives Diotrephesians fits! When a person s motivating force is the indwelling Spirit of God and not a fearful regard for a dominating human leader, then the power over that person on their part is effectively cancelled out. Only One Mediator Despite our knowing this: ( For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 st Tim. 2:5)) that there is only one true mediator between ourselves and God our Father, yet some effectively attest that there is another by their actions. When we allow ourselves to become too enamored of a leader or even an organization to where we fail to maintain that direct one-on-one relationship with our God, we set ourselves at odds with one of God s Commands. We put someone between ourselves and God, a First Commandment issue. Action often justified with the excuse that This is God s minister and God would want me to acquiesce to everything His minister says! What many haven t addressed adequately is the question, Is that what we re really supposed to be doing as it regards God s ministers? Further, do we regard that man as our master or as our servant? That too defines us! So long as we adhere to this kind of situation, we incur another shortcoming. We inhibit ourselves from growing in grace and knowledge as we should. The only growth some people experience is just from what their minister feeds them! Just think 3 A minister back east in the early 80 s relied on the formula of loyalty to HWA as the best indicator of a person s conversion, and appointed three local deacons on that basis, passing-over long attending people. Then HWA died! Today, while those three are long gone, their real situation was clearly proven by their rote loyalty to the system but apparently without a functional regard for the Love of God. Ironically, many of those passed-over people are still faithful to God and His Truth to this day!! There s a profound lesson in that! what would happen if everyone rejected and stepped away from these Diotrephes situations. Personality-based cults and cult type organizations would disappear overnight! That fact indicates that we also are complicit in creating the situation! What? Who Me? Christ had to deal with these human tendencies even while facing the most excruciating distress, that of His impending death. His disciples jostled for position among themselves, wanting to become preeminent over the others. Matt. 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. 21. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. The text shows that the sons were in on it, but didn t have the guts to ask! His reply was to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. 24: And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25: But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26: But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27: And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Would a Diotrephes type commit himself to selfless servitude of others? But it s the issue of domineering or overlording that fires this engine. Loving pre-eminent position! We are built to be that way and to want that way. Walking by Faith on the other hand is a really scary path. It takes the indwelling of God s Spirit to walk out onto that water, especially when it s turbulent. Our first service to the Church of God is to walk by Faith, examining carefully those Works we deem worthy of support, distancing ourselves from those destructive organizations that seek to control us for gain, and extending the right hand of fellowship toward all who are blessed with the Gift of God s Spirit no matter what their affiliation. We realize no real gain from any Diotrephesian condition

19 C h a p t e r F i v e The Great Apostasy, after the First Century, is a well-documented Event. But, when We focus JUST on its Doctrinal Component, We overlook the Phenomenon that facilitated the Errant Drift! When researching the history of God s Church, we find numerous occasions where faulty theological ideas made inroads into the belief system that were appreciated as The Truth. The Apostles of the first century were already aware of dangerous errors that were on the periphery of the Body of Christ just waiting for the unsuspecting to let down their guard. Prominent mention is given in the New Testament to destructive doctrines, such as the doctrine of antichrist, 4 doctrines of demons, 5 perverted grace, 6 among other corrupting teachings. Besides these, we need to consider the ever present contaminations that had already impacted Jewish theologies of the time, including Gnosticism, Hellenism, Mysticism as well as theological distortions 7 that were home grown within Judaism s various sects by the first century. But there s another component involved with apostasy, one that Christ Himself warned about. Besides the tendency toward personal lethargy, so common among believers, on top of the drift into false beliefs that are ever present, there is also a subtle component that can impact God s Church in a less obvious way: One that we have consistently overlooked. One that the more politically inclined types among us often inadvertently embrace, not realizing the full ramifications of where it leads. Which Thing I HATE! Christ pointedly identified a component operating within His congregations that He says He hates! Are we aware of what that condition is, and what it 4 1 st John 2:22 & 4:3 5 1 st Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 13:9 6 Jude 4 7 Titus 1:14, Acts 23:8 19 entails? Reference to it is made repeatedly in the second chapter of Revelation. Back in the earliest era, we find that the Church as a whole was quite opposed to the phenomenon. But as Church history progressed, and as their Love waned, we find the component had gained a certain comfort level and a degree of accommodation among the unsuspecting. That component was what we today know as Nicolaitanism. The affection for this condition has caused most to overlook what is being referred to. In practical fact, whole denominations of churches have identified with this component as one of the best ways to counteract apostasy, while ignorantly drawing it in and imposing it on themselves and their unsuspecting memberships. What is missed is the realization that the condition itself is a great facilitator of and in many cases guarantor of apostasy, not at all a functional means of its prevention! First Love Counters Apostasy Revelation 2:6 has this to say. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. They are encouraged to continue with this stance, though being chided for fading zeal. When believers remain fervent, the Truth has its strongest advocacy. It s when that fervency fades that a need arises to preserve and protect the fundamental belief structure by other means. It s under such conditions that a Church becomes vulnerable to assault against its long held truths. Without the believers being the proper pillars and stays of the Truth, 8 other means are needed to preserve it. As we progress a few centuries to the time of the Pergamos congregation, we find the God-hated condition had gained a degree of acceptance. Not 8 1 st Timothy 3:15 identifies the membership as being such

20 only is it referred to as deeds as in verse 6, but is by now also recognized as a doctrine. That being, a doctrine of the Church! Verse 15 has: So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Notice, it wasn t yet a universal condition, but those who embraced it were accepted within the Body, but to their unrealized peril. God hates it for a specific reason. You see, when the membership fades in its love of the pure Truth of God, they easily surrender their personal commitment to its preservation to others. They pass the task to an echelon of men, a leadership class if you will, who may or may not have the best interests of the Truth in mind. More likely not. More than likely this echelon has another agenda, namely gaining control over the people, 9 and what better way than through ecclesiastical organization and its perceived exclusive authority? The first thing we need to realize about Nicolaitanism is that it is political in nature, not so much doctrinal! Though by the early Middle Ages, as we see, it had become a doctrine! It wasn t a doctrine so far as the early Church was concerned, until such time as it had been brought into the Church. There are a lot of varied beliefs in the world, but they aren t considered doctrines unless and until they re accepted as part of the theological make-up of the Church. Nothing New Under the Sun But we need to recognize that this Nicolaitan phenomenon was not an invention of the late first century. Under various guises, it had been around for centuries. One could even make a case for the Old Testament priesthood having been, to some degree, patterned after the condition. But to hear that Christ so HATED it, we are drawn to conclude that there s something quite different being in play. Now, is the mention in Revelation 2:6 the first place where we are introduced to the phenomenon? Or, are there prior mentions? Where His Disciples are cautioned later against embracing the Nicolaitan characteristic, were there instructions, given earlier, of how the Church should be structured? Are we to conclude that the first time the Church had ever been introduced to 9 Jude 11 & 16 coveting power, prestige and treasure! 20 Nicolatanism was in Revelation 2? Was the phenomenon something totally new to them, OR, were the early Apostles and believers already well aware of what this contemptible doctrine was? Perhaps we should ask ourselves, how did the early Church know to share God s contempt for the Nicolaitan approach? What were they taught about it? Early on, they were opposed to it. Later, not so much so. How did the early Church, in the fifties AD know to reject Nicolaitanism? Revelation wasn t written until the mid 90 s, a full generation later. But we see them already polarized against it. The Name is Revealing! Nicolaitanism is a word made up of two Greek words: nikos and laos. That combination of words meaning: conquerors of the people (the laity). Commentaries identify these as followers of one Nicolas, whose name may have been derived from his characteristic as much as being his actual name. Who was this Nicolas, and what was his angle? Obviously, there was a subliminal intent to conquer the people. In other words, to gain a control over them in some way. An Early Heretic Enlightens Us The mid-second century church leader, Marcion, promoted a theological position that was largely unacceptable within God s true congregations. But, it wasn t his errant theology so much that is of interest here. An internet site has this to say: the views of Marcion spread rapidly over the "whole world," (to use the usual Patristic phrase for the Graeco- Roman dominions); and as late as the fifth century we hear of Theodoret converting more than a thousand Marcionites. In Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Asia Minor and Persia, Marcionite churches sprang up, splendidly organised, with their own bishops and the rest of the ecclesiastical discipline, with a cult and service of the same nature as those of what subsequently became the Catholic Church. The fascinating thing about this prominent individual is the use of an organizational form (apparently borrowed from pre-existing cults) to establish churches. His form of organization is recognized as a precursor of what later became the Catholic Church s organizational model!

21 But the question was asked earlier, What awareness did the early Church have that predisposed them to hold such a negative regard for what later became identified as Nicolaitanism? The answer isn t obscure. We have these many discourses on how the Church should be structured: You Shall NOT Be That Way! The matter of personal prestige and pre-eminence came up early in the game. It s only natural, considering the natures of men. But a clear foundational base was laid down, which no doubt impressed the Disciples greatly. In Mark 10 we read: 42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Luke relates the same again in chapter 22: 24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Christ specifically prohibited His Disciples from setting themselves up in any kind of pecking order, such as is common in human organizations. This prohibition was the base from which they would have operated. It was clearly mandated that theirs was an obligation to serve, and with and by service to show themselves exemplary, but that quite aside from exercising authority over one another in any kind of power structure. Such was the orientation of what is often called the Primitive Church. This clearly is not the example we find within most religious organizations! You Are All Brothers The above sub-title could be regarded in different ways, but when superimposed upon the context of the power establishment of the accepted religion of their time, it is less flexible as to its point. In Matthew 23, Christ further spelled out how His ministry was NOT to be! Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. This passage is especially potent! Don t seek personal aggrandizement! We see first, a bad example, that of the scribes and Pharisees. Not only that situation, but where such establishment structuring leads. Class-elevation leads to impositions of burdens upon worshippers, (what was pointed out in the previous discourse), but it also creates the distraction of an inappropriate esteem level both from among themselves and from those in subjugation. It creates a two-tier structure, with a leadership over-class separate and distinct from the general worshipper class. That does two things: First, it draws attention from who ultimately is THE Master, and secondly, it counters the situation God wants among His people, that all are to be brothers, despite their service assignments, whether small or great. The very act of creating a master class places that ministry into an intermediary position. Thus the double-stated emphasis on who IS the Master! No, any true follower of Christ ought to see himself as cast in the lowest (servant) class. 21

22 And, such was the orientation of the early New Testament Church: A political climate entirely at odds with the Nicolaitan approach. A situation often referred to as the Primitive Church, as though the later establishment of a defined religious power structure was a superior more refined condition. (It may have been more satisfactory to men, but it isn t to God!) Super-elevating Leaders is Carnal Elevation of leaders was not confined to the leaders themselves, nor was it foreign to their followers! The Apostle Paul was frustrated in his ministry by those who persisted in their feral carnality. That frustration was expressed pointedly in the first three chapters of 1 st Corinthians. I present here just the conclusion of the matter found in chapter 3: And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that gives the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. This passage, of course, was prompted by their setting up of their personally favored ministers above others, as chapter 1 had explained earlier: of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ In chapter 3, he continues: Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. As in Matthew 23, the Master focus is directed back to Christ, He being the one who gives the increase! (Is that referring to numerical increase, or spiritual growth, or both?) We can also see in this carnal human proclivity the seeds of division, which is another product of the structure of apostasy! (See verse 1:11.) (Identifying with one prominent minister over another is what accounts for much of the division we find in God s Church even in the modern era!) Thinking More Highly than We Ought Being careful to draw out the intent of a passage in Romans 12, and with the previous in mind, we can see more of why the early Church avoided the Nicolaitan approach. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Would such a person be inclined to pose as preeminent?) 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Well, we know already what the will of God is with regard to conforming to the world s political power structures.) 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. (A logical follow-up to the subject of personal elevation.) 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Another statement illustrating that there should be no class-distinction within and among the membership: All being brothers, to repeat Christ s admonition in an 1 st Cor. 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of above presented passage.) 6 Having then gifts you, my brethren, by them which are of the house differing according to the grace that is given to us, of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on 22

23 our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; (The opposite of imposing ones self as being above others!) No Other Intermediaries Nicolaitanism, which provides structure to the twoclass system, with one echelon, the ministry, (the clergy) elevated above the membership (the laity), one class of individuals is automatically drawn into a position of functioning as though in between the individual lay-member and God. Realizing this, we can better understand the negative passion Christ has for it! Paul reminded Timothy in chapter 2 of this essential fact: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. Despite the legitimacy of Paul s office, (deaconship see chapter 3) he recognized his subjection to the one Mediator, and that he didn t function in any manner that would resemble being one himself. The same cannot be said of those organizations who intercede, taking confessions or disallowing their people open access to the Scriptures, electing instead to interpret them for them. Coveting Pre-eminence words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Unfortunately, this characteristic can be exhibited in any pre-eminence seeking organization, large or small! So, we can see, even without the mention of the word Nicolaitanism how the early Church would have recognized its unacceptability from the start. Where it Plays Out We ve come a long way with this subject, but now we need to shift back to the original premise: that Nicolaitanism is as much a facilitator of apostasy as is the apostasy itself. Churches typically focus in on their theological positions, relying on their organization to uphold their stated positions, and can we say, to enforce them. Church Organization typically is the great conservator of whatever degree of apostasy might have been absorbed. It functions to thwart any change (once established) essentially functioning to resist the reversal of any flawed theological position that was incorporated as the basis of their belief system. Though most Christian organizations will readily admit that there was a great apostasy that took root toward the end of the first century, and especially on into the third and fourth centuries, they on the other hand, seem quite disinterested in honestly reviewing those unfortunate divergences from the Truth, thus, their organizational structure functions as the supporting environment to preserve whatever apostate views they ve elected to embrace. Arriving at this development, which was not at all an unknown situation in the later era of the Church, So in this we also have a co-component of apostasy, we expose the underlying motivation of that being, the Nicolaitan doctrine, which sets the Nicolaitanism. Though pre-eminence can be the church clergy as being the staunch protector of desire and quest, even in one-man ministries, in its Doctrine, rather than being also those individuals more populous venues it provides a hierarchy in having God s Spirit. (Church organizations don t which less talented and less emboldened men can have God s Spirit, only individuals do.) Ministers function and gain an elevated status. We see one within the Nicolaitan systems are each subjected to unfortunate example in the late first century, in progressively higher echelon ministers, all the way John s third Epistle, verse 9: I wrote unto the up to the likes of cardinals and a supreme pontiff, church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the or his functional equivalent. Refinements of preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 doctrine or reversions back to the Faith once Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds delivered, are all but impossible, so long as a Nicolaitan structure remains in place. Any Committee which he doeth, prating against us with malicious 23

24 on Doctrine is sure to intervene, should an issue even get that far, with overwhelming refutation of any challenge to their traditional apostate views. We can see how doubly intransigent the condition is when we realize that the Nicolaitan structure itself is made one of the Doctrines of the church! Restoring the Faith once delivered under those conditions requires a fundamental restructuring of the whole approach to Doctrine! Christ, as He says, hates this phenomenon because of its symbiotic relationship with the Spirit of Apostasy! It locks-in error, frustrating reformation, and puts a barrier between the believer and His Holy Spirit. This is the prime reason why God hates the phenomenon that men are so prone to embrace in the name of religion. Borrowing from the organizational approach that is everywhere in human cultures: Lord-it-over type structures that have formed civil governments from time immemorial. The very way Christ told His Disciples not to be! How Long Will He Be Patient? What is especially ironic in the modern era, is that the Church of God is not immune to making the same mistakes as have been made in centuries past. The early Church went apostate, and it embraced the Nicolaitan condition. In this generation, the Church drifted into a similar mindset that posed some incredible statements. Some of them were: Salvation is all about government. As threats to the integrity of the Church increased, the organization turned to a ramped-up focus on its Government, not so much that of Christ, but of a hierarchy created below Him. That was founded upon a prior premise, that God always works thru just one man! Then as the Church fractured, after reprobate men were placed in the chief seats of government, many of its split-off groups perpetuated the same claims, but of course shifting reference over to their leader. If that wasn t sufficiently shocking, it was later alleged that The only thing the catholic church had right was government!! An obvious allusion to the blatantly Nicolaitan structure under which it operates! Many looked right at these claims at the time, and saw nothing amiss! He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the Churches. Now, with that, we should have anticipated the next development: the imposition of an inter mediary, or an intermediary structure between the members and God. I have in my archives a 1980 taped message and transcript that makes the statement many, many times, that We relate to Christ thru the Apostle, referring to that one man thru whom God worked. Now if that doesn t place an intermediary between us, then what does? No, we don t relate to or interface with Christ through any man. Our relationship is absolutely direct. God s Spirit comes into us directly, not through any organization, no matter how much Truth it otherwise has. So, the developing concept and approach to Church government became subjugated under the old Nicolaitan spirit, except in this case it occurred before the organization apostasized. The apostasy came along later, and the structure then in place prevented faithful members and ministers from doing anything at all about it! Such is the nature of that beast! Those few who held fast to the Truth were obligated to go out (but with some still retaining the nature). The Church that then was faded to only a mirage of what it had been, to the everlasting shame of those who failed the test. But our embracing of our situation-appropriate version of Nicolaitanism first, then it paving the way for apostasy later, we see it doubly demonstrating the inter-relationship between the two. This living lesson should re-emphasize the corrupt nature of that system, one patterned after the beast, an ecclesiastical replica of the political structure of ancient Rome. There s nothing about Nicolaitanism that ever changed to where God would ve mollified His hatred of it. We should know that! If there is anyone who is still unsure of why God saw need to close down what had been potentially the more effective Commission-bearing entity in the modern era, we have in this an answer. I know your works: behold, I have set before you an open door, and no man can shut it: for you have a little strength, and has kept my word, and not denied my name. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out:

25 C h a p t e r S i x A prediction made in one of the Minor Prophets, Regarded as having Special Relevance in the End Time, is Used by Some to Justify Personal Lethargy! How should we Respond to this Condition? The 1960 s and 1970 s were a heady time for the Church of God. Its radio broadcast represented, for more than a decade, the largest single purchase of religious air time in the world. Response to those broadcasts proved to be no less impressive, to the point of attracting the largest number of attendees each week than at any time in ages. explanation of being unjustifiably expensive, even while the income was still seeing an upward incline! 11 Books and booklets were being advertised as out of print while truckloads of Mystery of the Ages, US & Britain in Prophecy and many others, even brand new hard-cover hymnals, were being hauled off to the dump. 12 It Wasn t to Last! But as the 1970 s drew to a close, significant events foreshadowed dramatic changes. The expulsion in mid- 78 of the second most highly regarded minister in the organization, due to unconquered extra-marital infidelities, 10 then the seizure of Church offices, finances and properties in early- 79 by the Attorney General of the state of California, and from within that turmoil, the ascension of the man who would later become appointed as Pastor General seven years later, the stage became set for a dramatic and wholesale repudiation of the teachings that organization had represented since its inception a half century before. With the death of its esteemed elderly founder in 1986 at age 93, and the dramatically new paradigms of his successor, the Church was set on a path which brought a swift and thorough demise, not only of its solid biblical teachings but of its very presence as an organization. Though the first few years after the new Pastor General was appointed saw the momentum of the prior administration continue, with new television presenters, and very professional production, it was determined that the Church, despite its successes, could no longer afford the costs of that medium. Simultaneously, the print media efforts were dramatically reduced, with similar 10 A minister, who along with his father, had been regarded at one time as one of the two witnesses described in Rev Frogs in Hot Water Changes came slowly at first, unnoticed by the majority of unsuspecting members who were kept relatively in the dark. But within a few years, the long denied agenda driving the changes surfaced. 13 Those fundamental doctrinal changes began to accumulate and create a crescendo to where the situation could no longer be kept under cover. By the seventh year, alarm bells were finally beginning to ring. By the mid-90 s, membership losses were beginning to approach landslide proportions. Losses were publicly admitted to being at 26,000 for Ministers by middecade were finally beginning to admit their deep concerns, despite tacitly accommodating the situation for a time for the sake of their jobs, salving their profound anxieties in various ways, 11 This situation is well documented in Stephen Flurry s book, Raising the Ruins. ISBN I am acquainted with a former WCG Pasadena employee who witnessed said clandestine trashings, even rescuing unopened cartons of books off those trucks, some of which remain in our use and possession. 13 Admitted publicly by pastor general Joe Tkach, Jr. finally on a nationally televised broadcast of The 700 Club. 14 Feast Sites were cancelled on a massive scale reflecting these membership losses, with 6 announced in the spring of A seventh, the site where the new pastor general was to have presided, was obliterated by hurricane Opal on the Day of Atonement that same year! Mid-year of 1995, the United Church of God formed, eroding membership by another 15,000.

26 until it, for them, finally became unbearable, and their Christian obligations, at last, came to the fore. With the decease of the new Pastor General in late 1995, under rather shocking circumstances, 15 his son and heir apparent, pressed thru major doctrinal repudiations he had long championed, finally free of the more cautioned approach of his father. Only thereafter was it acknowledged that the son and cronies had been secretly conspiring for some time with those long regarded as the enemy to gain expertise in pushing thru changes they themselves didn t have sufficient talent to successfully put over on the membership. Talents of more experienced evangelicals were tapped, providing many subtle techniques that proved effective with a membership long on organizational loyalty but inadequate to the task of upholding fundamental biblical truths, in that they had been told what to think for so long, but not how to think and to really prove those essential doctrines. The Church had drawn to its breast many lethal deficiencies. The approach of unquestioned loyalty to the leader undeservedly extended the same consideration to his successor, who proved in time to be a rubber crutch. The END of the Work? But with the Church irreversibly fractured, its sheep and many shepherds driven off and scattered, its media and publishing efforts cut back, and with the content of what remained being repulsive to a majority of former members, it was an easy conclusion on the part of an underexperienced membership to throw up their hands and declare the Work to be finished! We need do nothing from this point onward! That in greater part due to a prophecy that factored into peoples thinking, often referred to as the famine of the hearing of the Word. That prophecy is found in 15 Beginning in early 95, the pastor general was afflicted with four life-threatening illnesses in five months, all unrelated, and which ultimately ended his life 40-weeks to the hour of his presentation of his watershed message in Atlanta, GA regarded as being the one that precipitated the official overthrow of key doctrinal positions of the Church, particularly the Sabbath. The last line of his last letter to the membership was, There is no turning back. Emphatically that proved true! 26 Amos chapter 8. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. From this passage it was concluded that there d be a time in which the Work would completely cease and our obligations to continue going into all the world and preaching the gospel would cease as well. Many found comfort in that situation, (despite not liking it), in that they weren t inclined to actually do anything personally anyway. After all, they d done little to nothing by way of personal witness for so many years, and would likely have been strongly discouraged had they tried to do anything like that, making their reticent momentum perfectly logical! This idea provided them a very convenient excuse in justifying their assigning themselves and others to a spiritual retirement. The Work is Done, they declared, poising ourselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! Then again, with now a quarter century having passed since that supposed end, their conclusion might have been just a bit premature, especially considering other specific end-time prophecies. What Are We to Conclude? Famines aren t new to the world s experience. History provides some memorable examples, from those caused by climate conditions, by wars and those totally artificial, such as what Stalin did to his own people in the 1950 s. But in any famine situation, there is always some food, but just not in sufficient supply for the needs. How do we in our situation define famine? Is it a situation of absolutely none at all or just a relative scarcity? Think how you would regard the approach of a farmer who you found hadn t planted a crop during years of famine conditions. His reply to your question about that being, Don t you know there s a famine on? I shouldn t plant, we re in a FAMINE! I would be working against God s express Will! I think we could all see seriously faulty reasoning in that kind of response on a farmer s part in a famine year.

27 Yet Church people seem to find a similar kind of reasoning to be perfectly logical as it regards doing the Work of God! It seems we think that just because it will be difficult for sincere truth seekers to find a genuine source of Truth in this informationally distorted world, that we should shrink back into the shadows, sit on our hands and do effectively nothing! Why should we attempt to preach the Gospel? Don t you know this is the famine of the hearing of the Word? Certainly NOT Unique First, IS Amos prophecy as exclusively applicable to our day as we ve concluded, and second, does famine mean what we ve posed it to mean, with no possible source of Truth or access into the Family of God? Food being hard to find is one thing, but that versus there being none at all is quite another matter. And husbandmen who dismiss the need and use a dried-up world scene as justification for unproductiveness, is an excursion into a logical twilight zone. How do we regard the inter-testamental period as it regards this prophecy? How do we regard the Dark Ages from the early second century through the early seventeenth? Those eras were locked more into informational famine than any we might expect in this era. Yet pockets of true disciples remained functional, though to limited degree during those ages. And if a willful cessation of evangelization is entirely appropriate, what do we make of Christ s statement in Matthew 24:46 and Luke 12:43? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. We see in this an expectation on His part of His servants doing something meaningful during that point in time we assign as the famine of the hearing of the Word!. Not only this consideration, but we also have the description of conditions in the end time as it relates to His true Saints. Despite extreme opposition as it regards world reaction, His Saints are called to service in a particularly opportune way! The 11 th chapter of Daniel has this: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. (This is during the active era of the Beast Power!) 33: And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall 27 by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. 34: Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. 35: And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. His Two Witnesses Concurrent with the exploits of these end-time Saints is the projection onto the world scene of His Two Witnesses. For three and a half years, there will be a powerful witness to the whole world, unprecedented in all of world history! (Revelation 11:3-13.) Who will these individuals be? What organizations support them? Will they be heads of Church organizations or just common men drawn by God from among His flock? Various Church leaders have assigned themselves as being these over the years. Two in particular in the past, who today are no longer living, and others presently who feel confident in imitating their presumption. Whoever they may be, their commission is a long way from our definition of a famine of the Word in the end-time as has been posed. It doesn t say society in general will positively respond to their corrective and provocative witness (though Daniel 11:34 may offer some indication that some will respond), but their upsetting message will be very widely known around the world as Revelation 11:10 clearly shows. The world will celebrate their deaths as an historic event! Hand-in-glove with the too reticent nature of some, the concept of the Church being swept out from in front of the turbulent stream of end-time events is the idea of surviving Saints being taken to a place of safety. That certainly could be suggestive of a famine of the Word at that time, but its coincidence with the 42 month public ministry of the Two Witnesses represents a contradiction needing more adequate answers. Though, sadly, being in possession of but a little strength, the Church in the end-time is exhorted to hold fast to its Commission and respond to any and all open doors afforded to it. (Rev. 3:8) The safer bet by far is to be found so doing!

28 C h a p t e r S e v e n It continues to Amaze how Former Members of the Worldwide Church of God continue to Hold Fast to a Concept of Government that was in time Raised to the level of DOCTRINE. Even after its effective Dissolution, many hold to the Former Concept, not realizing what was Wrong, even though experiencing its continuing Divisive Effects! Had we been told in advance, say in the 1970 s, that the worldwide Church of God would come to such a sudden and wholesale reversal of fortunes, even despising its own teachings, no doubt it would have been met with disbelief and scorn. But, that story is now history. Regarding how it all unfolded, much has been written, but as to its ultimate cause, that s a different story. It s evident by the ongoing saga within the various remnant organizations that the underlying cause is not recognized. That s also a story needing to be told. As to how His Church was to be administered, Christ recognized the natural human tendencies, and cautioned against applying such an approach as the world in general uses. It wasn t a new thing, even in their day, but it needed repeating. But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mk. 10:42-44) Such a basic approach to how His servants were to conduct themselves among themselves and in serving His called-out ones, you would think this would be of major interest. Yet, it was ignored in a major way, both from the second century and again in the present days. Has God Reorganized His Church? In the early years the structure of government in His Church was better understood, as is evident by 28 the article published in That concept of how the Church ought to be administered prevailed through the next couple of decades. But significant growth spurred reconsideration, as the administration of so many new congregations, and the needs to manage growing fiscal resources, made a new approach an apparent necessity. It was at that point where the dynamic began to change. Are You Not Carnal? Added to that was the phenomenon, we read of in the first three chapters of 1 st Corinthians, where the carnal tendency to identify with men of stature gained acceptance among us. There was little incentive for those who knew better to counter what was happening, as they also bene-fitted from the prestige accrued to themselves. Any who spoke against what they saw developing found themselves on the outside looking in! Few took the matter to heart. With that, a measure of personal vanity of that leadership compounded the problem. Then, unconverted outside associates found a way to stroke that vanity to their own advantage, and a potent situation developed. 16 Once the pump was primed, there was no turning from the headlong drift into the very situation Christ specifically spoke against. While most field congregations remained largely oblivious to the headquarters situation, a growing 16 Nothing meets the definition of tares more than this extra-ordinary circumstance. Individuals not baptized, not holding the doctrinal views of the Church, were firmly in control of legal affairs, the treasury and of access to the pastor general.

29 mindset was taking root which ultimately infected all loyal members. More and more the focus was on the preeminence of the human leader, with lip service to the idea of Christ being Head of the Church. Should a person actually use that as a practical reason for not following the explicit directives of the leadership, that offender would find himself set out rather quickly. On a local level, concerns or grievances were filtered up to higher ups through the person who was likely the offender, or a confidant of that person. At higher levels, conscientious ministers were constantly pressured to acquiesce to official decisions, not offering them any opportunity to give what could be much needed counsel or course-corrections! Enters the Two-Tier System As the Church grew, it seemed increasingly logical to promote the idea of a headquarters organization. Any entity needs a degree of organization in order to function without chaos, but there was a subtle development that was introduced into the thinking by what was set-up. Those privileged to serve in its various administrative positions gradually were seen as being well above regular members. Especially with their ranks being given names such as apostle, prophet and evangelist, district superintendent, senior pastor, pastor, deacon, etc. The inevitable echelon, separating these clergy positions from the laity took firm root, and God s Church operated more and more like their counterparts in the religious and corporate world. But the difference was profound, in that its office holders were assigned titles borrowed right from the New Testament, creating a perceived Godordained chain-of-command authority structure within and a growing sanctuary against scrutiny of any deemed below them. They were answerable only to those above them, and for the most part, serving at their sole pleasure. For a minister or member to offer anything remotely perceived as correction was seen as rebellion of the order of Korah and his wilderness associates. Effectively by this, the so-called laity was denied any real oversight in the affairs governing themselves and the clergy operated on an increasingly elevated pedestal, claiming they were accountable to no-one except God. The higher up, the more so. But another situation was incumbent with this development. It placed intermediaries between each member and his True Master. This affected the internal operations of the structure and removed accountability of any administrative decisions from oversight. Those supporting the Work were allowed no say in the affairs that affected them! honest. 29 The Loyalty Factor The ministry was appointed from above with the local congregations having no say whatsoever in the matter. Those so appointed were loyal more to the administration that appointed them than those they were supposed to be serving. Compounding the situation was where the paycheck originated. Men were put in the position of being hirelings, whether they were or not. Any congregational dissent was turned right back to the local minister, leaving him to deal with any complaints against himself or those he personally selected to be his serving elders. And headquarters was loyal to their man more than being as concerned for the welfare of the flocks as they ought to have been! While things seemed to work reasonably well, at least where the ministers were faithful to their calling, there was an underlying set of factors that worked against the health and the vibrancy of the congregations and the organization overall. That too was never addressed. Tares Among the Wheat? A person would need to understand the human factor to assess what was happening. It has often been said that some of the ministers sent out should never have been made ministers. We need to understand how that happened. While it was more logical to assume that if there were any, the tares would most likely be found among the members, it was to our chagrin that we came to realize that they were in the ministry as well. A recent admission of a long-time minister that, Our problems were minister caused problems, should have already been realized. What major disruptions were there over the years which didn t originate among the ministry? Be

30 Ambassador Culture Ambassador College first began classes in 1947, sponsored and supported by the then fast-growing Radio Church of God, with an intended purpose of providing a formal education and trained ministers adding credibility to the work of God. The college was unaccredited for good reason its focus was to provide a right and balanced liberal arts education to students, and provide the Church with a trained and better qualified ministry by preparing men through education for service. With this in mind, consider the Ambassador College experience. Competition for acceptance to AC was encouraged by the field ministry. Good marks, a good attitude, recommendations by the ministry were all necessary prerequisites. (And a recognizable family name didn t hurt.) While we should not fault their having high standards for acceptance, one should understand that most decisions made by human beings are very subjective. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart! (1 st Sam. 16:7) The unintended consequences of inviting hundreds of mostly young pre-conversion adolescents to become students at AC are not that difficult to understand if one looks at the past 50 years with an open mind. Ambassador College was not a wrong or bad concept. It s just that the institution itself did not realize the growing corruption within itself. What history has shown is that the Biblical model for leadership was ignored routinely, especially through the latter years of the Worldwide administration. The Bible sets down very clear qualifications for a minister in the Church of God. They are well known, being described in 1 st Timothy 2 and Titus 1. While no one can be perfect in all things, so often even in the various churches today, these scriptures are entirely ignored in ordinations NOT EVEN READ! Why? Because a 22 year old young man while he may be decent and with good prospects CANNOT POSSIBLY QUALIFY! How can a 22 year old even if recently married to a wife be measured against a standard of ruling his house well, with his children in subjection? He has barely entered the adult world! He is only just 30 experiencing the marital problems and life s problems he is attempting to counsel others about. How can one near this age be proven as noted in verse 10 of 1 st Timothy 3? And note that verse 10 applies to Deacons 17 how much more for a shepherd of God s people! The word elder became corrupted, losing its obvious definition. An inexperienced graduate of a college is not really an elder! Why was that not obvious? Smooth Operators Then those that were the smoothest flatterers, those best at culturing relationships, the gifted politicians, those that feigned obeisance, and those that know how to schmooze and work the system most effectively, tended to be the ones promoted in such an environment. Thus and this is may be hard for many to accept most that were offered a position in the ministry were never converted to the degree they ought to have been! God was not necessarily in their ordination, and when He was not, didn t set them apart! Why? Because God is not a part of such tactics in choosing men for His ministry! Often, what is most obvious to God is not so obvious with men. Many placed into the field as pastors did not have enough life experience to manage their own lives, let alone provide sound counsel to God s elect. Of course there were sound policies in place to govern by, and these, when implemented without mature judgment, tended to expose the lack of conversion in the WCG ministry. In addition, there was the knowledge that the elder-patriarch was in charge and the undisputed boss. So generally, most did what they knew the boss wanted, even if they inwardly might ve had reservations with this or that policy or doctrine. Let me repeat so there is no misunderstanding Ambassador College as an institution and as an ideal was not wrong, or a mistake. However, history has proven that many of the men selected did not remain loyal to the truth! So there wasn t (generally) a problem with the curriculum taught, or even the program. It was the selection process 17 It is commonly held that Deacon represents the lowest office in the Church. More correctly, the title Bishop should be rendered Overseer and Deacon should be translated as Servant or Minister.

31 that tended through the years to become ever more corrupt. As time passed, those ordained, who should not have been, eventually became the ones who selected and groomed the next prospects. Other Factors Ignored Not only did the minister selection process set aside certain important instructions, the Church failed to take seriously the sectarian considerations discussed in the opening chapters of 1 st Corinthians. What was happening among those believers was that they took on an inappropriate regard for God s ministers. There is no question of the genuineness of Paul, Peter and Apollos. That wasn t the problem area. What those people were doing was setting themselves apart from one another, subliminally alleging a self-superiority based on who they identified with. It was an approach that caused division within the body of Christ. Paul identified its divisive effect and labelled it as carnal-mindedness. The long-term effects of that mentality continues in many of our remnant organizations. But, the lesson was lost on most attendees. The Church s approach, in interest of creating loyalty, used that very flawed way of thinking, elevating it to a form of institutional carnality. Those desirous of any position within the organization were required to exhibit undivided loyalty to the man leading the work. While there were no internal competitors recognized, as there was in Corinth, it did create an exclusivist attitude toward all other organizations, irrespective of their merit. That condition aggravated additional problems later on when new administrators were elevated into the chief seats and as the paradigm changed. You Are All Brethren Chief among the overlooked instructions might be the simplest one, the admonition to His Disciples that they were to regard themselves as brothers. Not brethren in the usual sense of being fellow believers, but being on the same level in their relationships with one another. This too cuts to the heart of a flawed concept of relationships among and between ministers and their relationship to those they were called to serve. You see, this, if used, intentionally undermines the thinking that the two-tier system was based upon. It also corrupted 31 the thinking of the membership, in that they also didn t look on our interpersonal relation-ships with the ministry as being at a brotherly level! The New Testament makes reference to brotherly love (as we did as a body) but it was not a reality in practice. The ministry, regarding themselves in an elevated echelon, separate from the membership (the lowly laity), saw it appropriate to maintain loyalty among themselves and to the headquarters organization more than to those whom they were sent to shepherd. The passage referenced is this: But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matt. 23:8) This clearly does not refer to the idea of their all being brethren just in a general sense. It clearly deals with the idea of them considering themselves as Masters or Leaders over others, especially one another. He instructed them to remain cognizant of their being more or less equal with each other and with those they serve, not seeing themselves as set over them as though in a different echelon. In fact, not just equal, but subordinating themselves to one another. Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Eph. 5:21) Consider how that would screw-up a chain-of-command authority structure, if it were practiced? Not to worry. It wasn t! He is Greatest Who Serves the Most This admonition is substantiated by the prohibition offered before the Passover in Mark 10:42-44, (quoted earlier in the second paragraph) and repeated again after it, as recorded by Luke in Luke 22:24-27, that they were to not operate as do governments and corporations of this world. They were not to worry about, or strive to achieve any superiority over each other, except perhaps as demonstrated in service. Had this admonition be en carefully observed, think what a different culture we would have known in the Church. Most obviously, it would have been a more loving environment, one far less authoritarian. But the other ramification of the culture as it came to be was the restrictiveness it brought upon those not considered to be among the elite echelon known as the ordained ministry. 18 While Christ 18 Never mind the fact that there is no example of any formal ordination service in the New Testament.

32 instructed His apostles to make disciples of all nations (as they had been), and to teach them to do all things He had commanded them to do. One of those things was for them to go into all the world. That was one of the things He had commanded them to do. Disciples were to be trained to go and do what they had done. That too was omitted from the program. Members were strictly kept under authority, which often meant they were not to get out of line attempting to in any way share what they had learned with others: not attempting to serve the brethren unless specifically asked to do so, and not even so much as conducting a Bible Study without the presence of the minister. (Which of course rarely if ever happened!) 19 Experiencing the Inevitable Following HWA s death, his personally appointed successor was afforded much the same deference as he, the organization s founder, had been. The apostasy imposed under that new pastor general s leadership created a reaction that eventually drove away some 80% of former members, leaving only a 20% faithful remnant on the outside, mostly scattered among many competing splinter groups. What is important to note at this point is that the very structure of government we had embraced and held so high previously was the very instrument used to impose the apostasy. While there was an Advisory Council of Elders, they had for so long functioned as acquiescent yes men, they had no backbone to stand against the egregious repudiations of the teachings and principles held to that point! Those that might have raised objections, no matter how subtly, were replaced. That too was not new! Rushing In to Fill a Need! This presents a curious consideration, when we realize that the apostasy imposed and the divisions it caused were facilitated by the very concept of government that we had embraced a half century ago. What we had presumed to be of God turned out to be the very tool used to divide and destroy the Church and all that it stood for. Some ministers were put-out, with a following who identified with the person opting to exit and gather with him. Others left of their own volition, drawing out a few more. In the mid 1990 s, there was a massive defection including more than 150 ministers and half of the remaining membership. 20 With a correct concept of government, as it should be in the Church, these divisions would fade away. It takes a wanna-be-great (or wanna be THE greatest ) type leader to perpetuate the unnatural resentments that were unintentionally cultured between members. There is no real need for that. It is an affront to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we harbor any kind of resentment or disdain toward any fellow-believer. God s Spirit doesn t generate that! That orientation, unfortunately, is our indelible legacy. It accrues to our shame! Our various super-leaders cluck like alarmed hens who have spotted a hawk when their attendees read other literature or would remotely consider attending with a competing group (though their belief systems don t exhibit a dimes-worth of difference as they say.) We need to understand why that is. They would put such people out and perhaps declare them spiritually dead for doing so, as though their say so carries any weight with God s Spirit. That is a carry-over from the good old days when to leave the Church was tantamount to losing the Holy Spirit. That was alleged back in the day, though not the case in reality. So, whatever concept of government we may hold, it should NOT generate any negative regard for fellow brethren of a different affiliation. Authority s Boundaries In fairness, it should be stated that the leader of a particular continuation of the Work, the minister leading that effort has the authority to direct the 19 The reaction to the suggestion of holding a private Bible Study was startling. Even after 40+ years in the Church, such a request caused one minister to almost freak-out and come to the conclusion that he ought to throw those so inclined out of the Church! (Not to say all would react that way.) The year 1994 saw the membership loss of some 26,000 prompting the cancellation of seven major Feast sites BEFORE another 15,000 were lost in1995 to the United movement, (which by the way has experienced two significant splits since, one in 1998 and another in 2011).

33 affairs of his own organization and to conduct God s Work as he feels he is given to do. That does not justify throwing a blanket of authority over others doing the same, nor give any basis to pronounce illegitimate any fellow servant on nothing more than not affiliating (in humble submission) to him. This is where the exclusivity syndrome, cultured within the WCG comes back onto the scene. All Power to One Man? God left no exclusivity of authority of a single man to have preeminence over fellow servants. The greatest (in God s sight) would be those who humbly served the most, not who stood on the highest pedestal. That is the mistake brought into the WCG (with SR s urging, I might add) which led us to accept (or promote those with understanding never accepted it) the Petrine Supremacy teaching, that Peter was the Chief Apostle with sole authority over all other apostles. (that of course with intent to justify there being a sole apostle in this age.) Nor was Peter the first Pope. Given enough time for this abominable teaching to fester, we would have gone there as well, no doubt! HWA said things that sounded somewhat like that, with his peter / pater (father) statements, 21 which curdled the blood of many established believers at the time. At one point (toward the end) it was claimed that the only thing the Catholic Church has right is government. Yet, in days past, we realized that the CC was patterned after the governmental structure of the Roman Empire, the future BEAST! It is fully Nicolaitan, where the clergy has fully overcome (conquered) the laity. We came to believe that that s where we ought to go organizationally. Were we closed down because of that drift, or were we given over to that thinking because we were becoming too compromised in our theology? Some argue it one way, others the other way. Whichever, the WCG had no staying power. It is GONE, which shows it couldn t of and by itself BE the true Church, as that entity will survive thru to 21 There was a multi-page issue of the Worldwide news in the mid-1980 s which explained this concept, with intent to justify the apostle s sole authority over the one true church. 33 the end. The true Church will be those who survive through to the end. Another question regarding authority, (which we never thought through), what authority does the leader of the organization (whichever one) have over our personal lives? They don t know us, they don t know our names even, and they have no real say in our daily deeds or misdeeds. While they hope to have and hold our personal loyalty to themselves, to their self-promotions and teachings, their real authority doesn t extend much beyond their particular organizational affairs. 22 Whether we may attend with his people might be one area that can affect us, but how can we submit to their authority, or how can other ministers submit to their authority, other than mentally, and to what effect? Would their messages then have to be run by the leading minister first? Did the early church ever do that sort of thing? Did any New Testament writer run their material by another apostle first? No, the leading of God s Spirit was sufficient. To place such a function in the hands of a man or men, would ultimately lead to the likes of what became the Catholic Church. At least, it would create an environment of stifling the growth dynamic of the membership. Ministers are to promote growth, not suppress it, which they more typically do under our culture, as we developed it. Such authority would not legitimately extend to the leading of God s Spirit. That freedom to follow its lead was a matter of concern within the WCG culture. They didn t want us to grow in grace and knowledge (beyond a certain level) because if we did, they would lose some of their control. Congregational Oversight Now, let s consider the taboo area by asking, What authority does the Body as a whole have? In the WCG we were emphatically made aware that we had no say whatsoever. To critique the apostle was met with a quick expulsion. Egregious things were done, but we were told it was not our business to even think about such things. For example: Baptized members at HQ 22 As an absurd example, Rod Meredith disfellowshipped Fred Coulter, who was not even a member of his own Living CoG organization, but a scholarly minister who severed from the WCG before Rod was retired from there.

34 were under the authority of non-believers (the SR echelon). HWA was bamboozled into marrying Ramona, while some cautioned against that! Joe Tkach was appointed the succeeding pastor general against counsel, which he rejected. We were told, as we had been before, that it was not our responsibility to criticize. If he was to do anything amiss, God would correct Him. For us to do so was to judge God!! Such was the cultural climate, and we paid the price. We had omitted an important Biblical condition from our way of doing things. True Structural Stability The Church is mandated to be the pillars and grounds of the Truth (not just the official ministry. And, how did the ministry do in that regard?) We are to know them BY their fruits (which requires that we evaluate their fruits or lack thereof.) We are to have our senses exercised and to rise to the level of teachers (the third numbered position in the ministry as we defined it. (1 st Cor. 12:28)) All of this requires oversight on the part of the membership, particularly the matured elders in each congregation. That was largely prohibited by Pasadena despite the New Testament s instruction to do so. Adding the counter-balancing effect of congregational oversight, along with servant oversight, would have provided us with a selfcorrecting enduring entity. We fell apart in the end due to our neglect in that area. Just One Example Before concluding, perhaps it would be good to present an example of the effects of our underlying mindset when it comes to what we call government, which we presume is of God. We here in Grand Junction had a small but harmonious UCG congregation. We had a series of wellknown ministers, including Bill Jahns, Doug Horchak 23 and Larry Salyer 24. We were fairly steady in attendance after the UCG split from the WCG in mid-1995 until the CogWa development 23 Son-in-law of Joe Tkach, who remained faithful to the Truth, despite having been offered third man in the church if he would go along with and promote the changes! 24 Formerly a principal within the Global CoG organization, who was instrumental in getting Rod Meredith thrown out of his own organization for unbridled financial appropriations. 16 years later. When that happened, we were splitup, with about a 40 / 60% breakout. That due primarily to the pressure and behind-the-scene influences of the local minister at the time. Members who attended, with no real issues with one another were, within a few days, divided and resentful of one another. There has been little cross-contact since! We all believe the same, the only difference was, after November of 2010, practically overnight, we were all polarized, offish and resentful of one another, with no real basis other than a political schism that evolved entirely within the ministry. It was true, ours was a minister-caused problem! Severing Fellowship Bonds This kind of thing is the legacy of our concept of government. Where is the congregation that dug in its heels and said to the dissenting minister, We re not going to become divided? You see, there is no congregational or brotherly loyalty within the supposed Church of Brotherly Love! We were trained to not have brotherly love, when we should have it. The way we were trained was to direct our first loyalty to the organization ascendant, not with any real concern for the health of the Body itself. Well, the dissenting minister here has moved on to other pastures, the local UCG faded to nothing within a year and the CogWa group is a pitiful few. And, for what, really? You see, the forces causing division are deeply embedded in our way of thinking, which is the legacy of the WCG s concept of Government. God s Government promotes unity, both with our Elder Brother and with those who are His sons and daughters. And, THAT is determined by the indwelling of God s Spirit, not by organizational affiliation. Where our regard for our servant class should be derived should be a reflection of their quality of service, not based solely on their appointment. That isn t how we did things! Have we learned anything yet? Hearing the rantings of some high self-promoting exclusivist type men, it appears not! It s time to reassess and to get it right. That will be done in the companion chapter: Examining the BIBLICAL Model of Church Government. 34

35 C h a p t e r E i g h t In Consideration of the Administrative Approach of the Past, a New Approach has gained Appeal among a certain few Ministers. One rightly claimed to have been Appropriate all along! This chapter explains WHY this approach, If by itself, is insufficient. In recent months, I ve been writing a lot in preparing this booklet, addressing the subject of Church administration. Recipients of these papers have noticed and have commented on it being my current passion. Defensive Reactions What I m finding is that what I m saying is being interpreted from a point of view that our peoples might be expected to take. They are considering the matter from the point of view that we have traditionally operated under, not necessarily the Biblical model. This explains why their reactions are somewhat defensive and negative. They want to defend the ministry s authority position, and I can t fault them for that. I do defend the ministry also, but from a more comprehensive approach, while faulting certain extremes of degree to which things were taken in the past. This will be explained in later paragraphs. My primary goal is to elevate the stature of the general membership God s Ecclesia to its proper God-ordained role. Based on former cultural thinking, that is interpreted by some as an attack on the ministry. It isn t really, though it may seem that way based on our conceptions of decades past. WHO IS the Greatest? Jesus Himself set the general membership in the higher regard. We can see that clearly when we review passages such as Luke 22: There He placed His called-out ones (the members) in the higher position, equating them with honored guests at a banquet or the elders within a family. The ministry (the servants of those guests or elders) are placed in a lower position: This in direct response to His Disciples contentions as to who among them was to be regarded as the greatest. 35 From His own statements, we can see that Jesus views the general membership of the Church as the primary focus of His ministry, and thus of all who serve them as they serve Him. We, on the other hand, have traditionally focused on the ministry as receiving our primary regard, with some of them alleging that it is our purpose to serve them and their needs for recognition and esteem. It has been our habit of over-exalting the ministerial class that has caused so many divisions and other internal problems. We almost forgot that minister actually means servant. The characteristic of identifying with and exalting one minister above another is addressed in the first three chapters of 1 st Corinthians. It is there labeled as carnality and is recognized for its divisiveness. We, unfortunately, ramped that action up to the level of organizational carnality. We created in our minds that there are ranks among our servant class, and then set them above us in pre-eminence. The regard for the membership was then relegated to a lowered state (in some cases near contempt) and then we denied ourselves our God-given responsibilities. We were to evaluate the services being rendered to the membership. We were told we could know them (our servants) by their fruits. We were admonished to exercise our senses of discernment (Heb. 5:14). We were admonished to speak often one with another (Mal. 3:16). We were given examples where the congregations evaluated their brethren and even their apostles (Rev. 2:2). But all of that was rendered irrelevant, even deemed as inappropriate, despite the many New Testament examples of the membership being involved in appointments and in administrative decisions being made. One notable passage (1 st Cor. 6:1-8) faults them for not employing the

36 judgment skills of the members, especially those of least regard! There can be no mistake that it was intended that the members exercise their senses of discernment in a positive way. It was by reason of use that their senses were to be honed, for use in the Kingdom. (Mal. 3:16-18). A Way NOT to Be! All of that notwithstanding, we pursued the same approach as is common in human organizations, setting up an authority structure where the servants are set up to lord-over the people, the very opposite approach to what Jesus set before His Disciples. (Lk. 22:25-26) He told them that they were to not be that way! But in doing that very thing, we made two mistakes. One was the setting up of an authority structure (ranks), the other was the reversal of regard, putting the servants on top and the membership (the Church) on the bottom! A system referred to as Nicolaitanism, which is a transliterated form of a Greek language term indicating the conquest of the laity. Jesus is clearly on record as hating what we find as that Nicolaitan approach. We never did do due diligence in defining exactly what that approach is. We suffer the inevitable consequences as a result. That way of doing things produces predictable results. That s why Jesus hates it. We should as well. It suppresses the functions God gave to His Saints individually and collectively, it creates lines of division between members and their ministry, and it functions to impose doctrines without the consent of the Church, (the ecclesia), who are cited as having God s Spirit and being specifically identified as the pillars and grounds of Truth. We have both an early example and a modern example of a serious doctrinal overthrow that resulted from this organizational role reversal. It is when we restore the mandated function to the membership, as an operational balance to the authority of the ministry that we ll see the stability and steadfastness restored to God s Church and to His Truth that He desires. Our way is repeatedly proven to be divisive and erosive of Truth. It is seen as being our proper response toward those who serve the membership properly. It s mentioned expressly in regard to those who are local, serving among us: Those who know us and who labor on our behalf, teaching, motivating, exhorting, and when necessary, separating destructive elements out from among us. Such esteem is not specifically mentioned as being more appropriate to those who serve in a more at large capacity, who don t really know us personally. Love is personal. To exhibit greater love toward someone that doesn t know us and whom we don t really know, only on the basis of their perceived superior office is unjustified. We are told to show higher regard for those who labor among us. (1 st Thess. 5:12) We are to do so for their works sake, not blindly just on account of their declared rank. And, knowing their works puts a burden upon the ones being served to consider those works, to know and to evaluate those works and to regard their servants accordingly. If there are no good fruits, there is no obligation to remain in their service sphere, or to allow them to continue to under-serve or mis-serve the brethren there in that congregation. The Ephesians were highly commended for their evaluative circumspection. They didn t bear those who were evil (or fakes). They exposed the false apostles. It doesn t say they quietly stood-by under such individuals. They clearly were involved and were duly activist! (Rev. 2:2-6) At least at first, until the Nicolaitan movement gained inroads. Not the Modern Approach Now granted, this is inconsistent with our traditional approach, but it is consistent with the structure and examples of the early New Testament Church. It was our slide into an acceptance of the Nicolaitan system that we set ourselves up for our organizational demise. We at one time, in our later experience, came to the point of alleging that the only thing the Catholic Church has right is government! At that point, we were in effect praising the Nicolaitan authority structure in other churches. Is it any wonder, then, what resulted? Appropriate Ministerial Esteem God was not pleased, and we shouldn t imagine Now, as to the esteem that we are to show toward that He is going to intervene and restore such an the ministry, there IS an esteem that is appropriate. organization to its former stature or usefulness. 36

37 There are still many offshoot groups who are determined to preserve or to restore that structure, while to their credit retaining former teachings. Interestingly, this restored authority structure is the condition that is, in places, proving to be the underlying cause of the ongoing divisiveness we re seeing. It isn t so much the result of differences in teachings. There is a component built-into that way that has predictable results. God well knows that and as a result, in interest of maintaining unity and stability, established His Church differently! But, in certain situations, where as a result of these break-ups, congregations are achieving a degree of autonomy, the members are again being allowed their evaluative function and the say that they were long denied under their authoritarian past. Servant Leadership Now, in some quarters, the Church administrations are considering employing more of a servant leadership approach than they have in the past. Good as far as it goes, IF it goes, but IF it doesn t restore the general membership to their God-given role of monitoring the conditions within their congregations, we still have a formula destined to hinder productive growth. As history has proven, and we should well know by now, we can t rely on any hierarchy to preserve the Truth, to maintain unity or to provide the environment for spiritual growth that ought to be present. The rigid minister / follower approach (clergy / laity) doesn t provide the opportunity or proper encouragement to each and every member to be all of what God wants him to be. The ministry more often functions to inhibit use of God-given Talents rather than help each member to develop them! Rather than serve as motivating influences, encouraging members to develop their usefulness to God, they function more as blockers and bouncers in their congregations. In other words, they promote a culture that yields a crop of unprofitable servants. (Defined as a class which does no more than the minimum required of them!) The absence of growth and vibrancy within our congregations reflects that cultural condition. But, here s the question. Is a more servant-oriented leadership approach all that is needed? Will the congregations always be well-served by this change 37 of approach? In the cases where the local minister is doing all things well, there is a good chance that there ll be dramatic improvements. But among those who retain all control, even if only locally, members remain subject to a situation like we see in the Epistle of 3 rd John, where Diotrephes in his obsession with his personal preeminence, affected those he deemed his people in a detrimental way. When the minister is doing things right, being a servant-leader type is commendable. But, when not and being human, few are perfect another factor needs to exist. One Jesus placed in His Church: a means of administrative counterbalance. Members Must Oversee The ministers were told to regard themselves all as brethren : (Matt. 23:8) They were to not be overlords : (Matt. 20:25-28; 1 st Pet 5:2-3) Members were to know them by their fruits, not just by their elevated offices: (Matt. 7:16-20) Members were admonished to hear His voice over theirs : (John 10:3-5) Members were to speak often with and to exhort one another: (Mal. 3:16-18; Heb. 3:13) The poor results we re seeing are the legacy of not following God s dedicated approach to service. We see polarizations around one ministry over another, we see exclusivism, we see a form of contempt toward brethren who have God s Spirit and who believe largely the same, based primarily on ones chosen affiliation, we see barriers to open fellowship on a similar basis, and incessant divisions. With the Church itself the entire body of believers being regarded as the prime entity and as the focus of our service, the functional scene changes. The Church is the Body of Christ, His future Bride. All things done by Him are in interest of supplying her members with the best environment possible for spiritual growth and Talent development. All things done should be in interest of promoting the brethren, not enhancing the stature of the leadership. But without alert members keeping watch on the conditions, we remain at risk of reverting to the overlording Nicolaitan way!

38 C h a p t e r N i n e Profoundly Discouraging Experiences have Turned-off more than a few Church Members. Their Reactions resulted from Misconceptions of What Organizations are for. How Different would things be had we understood correctly What the Church IS and What Role it Should actually play in Our Lives? The Church of God has, for centuries, seen the rise and fade-away of many ministries, some significant and some small and local. Before the age of easy communication, before the era of a viable postal system or radio, groups of Saints had very limited means of interacting with one another on the broad scale that we can so easily access in this age. A New Operational Dynamic But with the advent of rapid communication and easy travel, the concept of what a Church IS took on a whole new definition. With a ministry s new ability to remain in contact with a much wider congregation, even extending out to have a worldwide scope, another phenomenon came into play that had no real historic precedent in the Church that Jesus Christ founded. That phenomenon was the establishment of a central Church Treasury, and with it the ability to exert control over a greater number of peoples in ways not known previously. That control situation was a mixed bag. On the one hand, it focused the ministry s teachings and mission, but on the other hand, it led to abuses on the part of so many local (field) employees of what must be described as an organization. The organization(s) all too often took on the form of a business corporation, exhibiting all of the interpersonal struggles commonly found in them. We should ask ourselves, was this what Christ wanted? Basic to this subject is the question of, What IS the Church? In our generation, we are predisposed to define it as the organization. In other words, a ministry organized to serve its members. (At least that would be a closer definition IF its mission was only that!) But typically, and especially, as a ministry grows larger, its mission often shifts to primarily serve the interests and needs of its selfperpetuation. Serving its membership becomes 38 secondary. As that mentality evolves, the concept of top-down government is likely to be imposed, one where a ministerial echelon reserves all decisions strictly to itself, and where the greater membership is allowed no say in any matter of consequence. These get to support the Work, but are sternly cautioned against thinking that they have any right or obligation to evaluate what is done or by whom it is done! What we then see is a professional ministry who makes its own interests to be the Work and the members are left out of the active picture. Again, we should ask, Is this what Christ wanted? An Amazing and Horrible Thing! For the most part, the consensus must be yes it is, because that s how so many ministries and churches operate, and it seems they love to have it be so. An insightful verse comes to mind, one which illustrates that the phenomenon we see is not a new thing. A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof? (Jer. 5:30-31) This passage sums up the phenomenon so well. Here a horrible thing is called attention to. A ministry (prophets) rules over a people, and those people fund them in doing so. These people are apparently pleased with the situation, because they continue to support it. While our first reaction might be to fault these prophets, the real fault lies with the people who are content to continue underwriting a bad situation. Because in doing so, they have to lay down their God given prerogatives and responsibilities. It isn t JUST that the prophets teach falsehoods, it is also that a contented unmotivated membership is lulled into a spiritually laid-back condition, failing to

39 remain awake and alert to faulty and contaminated theological ideas being imposed upon them. The passage asks, what will you do in the end thereof? In other words, what will you do when it all comes to an ignoble end? We know of it having happened with one major organization in this generation. Did the reason for its demise register in anyone s consciousness? Do we understand what happened and why? It seems it didn t among those many devotees who seek to place themselves right back into as close a replication of the former situation as they can find. What s ironic is that when their successor organizations experience a repeat of what occurred previously, the question of why still isn t given adequate consideration. Are Organizations Good? As the title of this article implies, there is a real benefit of God s people working together. A group combining their talents can do much more than any one individual can himself. It s a situation where 1+1 yields something greater than 2. Where yields something far in excess of the sum of what 20 individuals could accomplish when working separately. Organizations exist (or should exist) to focus the talent base within its congregations and amplify what members could ever hope to achieve on their own. No individual member possesses a full complement of talents. It takes a congregation of believers, each with individual talents, combining their various abilities into a congregate whole. What one lacks, another brings to the table. Paul explains the phenomenon in 1 st Corinthians 12. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. (Note: We are not baptized into the corporation!) If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. (Is the clergy / laity idea a schism?) Organizations can be set-up with a flawed basis if and when they fail to factor-in the essential idea represented in this above passage. The primary purpose for an organization is to structure and channel the individual spiritual gifts and talents that He places in each individual member into a cohesive whole. Mutual encouragement helps focus individual contributions into their most effective application. Organizations should provide the means for the collective efforts of many to be pooled, which allows a more effective and professional outreach. The whole body being greater than the sum of its individual members. Are ALL Organizations Good? Anyone with much experience in and among our the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To various organizations will have sufficient awareness another faith by the same Spirit; to another the to answer this question in the negative. While gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the the intentions may be good, too many ministries working of miracles; to another prophecy; to have succumbed to vanity and the carnality of selfesteem another discerning of spirits; to another divers that s so eloquently set forth in the first kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of three chapters of 1 st Corinthians. The ministry, tongues: But all these worketh that one and the once organized, often tends to see itself as set selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as above the membership. The Corporate Organiza- 39

40 tion is deemed to be the Church (and for certain legal reasons, this may be explainable, but we are not dealing on a legal basis among ourselves!). One way of proving the matter is to determine if members are considered part of the Corporation. Typically they are not! So, if the Corporation is the Church, and the members are not members of the Corporation, where does that leave things? But in our own minds, and among ourselves, there is no reason to operate under the auspices of a Corporate structure as opposed to operating in the manner that Christ instructed. Once the Foundation is Laid But more than this, the established clergy then goes on to lord-it-over the membership rather than over-seeing the congregations, which are the Church. It s NOT the ministry alone! Certainly not any corporate entity! Once the Corporation deems itself as being the Church, then its representatives feel they re unaccountable to any mere members. They can attend their Church or not. Any who see anything differently than the leadership does, are cautioned, and if caution isn t sufficient, they re encouraged to seek fellowship elsewhere. Overlording is not a new condition. Religion has employed the approach since the time of Nimrod and Semaramis. It has no place in God s Church! Christ warned His disciples against employing it, even stating that He hated it, referring to it as the deeds of the Nicolaitans (i.e. being hierarchical). Our record in understanding what that approach actually involves is rather poor. That may not be so inadvertent! The Nicolaitan (clergy / laity) division is seriously counterproductive in the Church of God for a number of reasons: The ministry must spend a great amount of their effort protecting their exclusive prerogatives, The ministry becomes rank conscious with particular aversion to any perceived elevation of those God may anoint, but whom they don t, 40 Talents God places within His Body are ignored or pro-actively suppressed. Thus, whatever Talent God may invest in a member, or even an individual minister, is disallowed development and expression. That denies members, having a Godgiven Talent, the opportunity to use it profitably as He intends: for growth in accomplishment and proficiency, and it denies the congregation the vibrancy such a Talent could provide. This is the greater flaw in our Nicolaitan structures, which effectively inhibits (quenches) God s Spirit. Stifling of individual talent, both on the ministerial level and member level, within a structured organization, is seriously counterproductive. It disallows the growth in proficiency of the membership and denies His Church the benefit of God given talents: Talents that are provided by God s Spirit: Talents that are intended for the edification of all! God s Intent Differs from Man s The Church of God in full reality is greater than just the membership of any one organization. It too is greater than the sum of any one of its ministries: the various temporary organizations that rise within it. It is comprised by the entirety of all who have God s Spirit, first and foremost, and is not limited by or confined within any particular organization. Too many have made that mistake! The Church, the entire body of believers who have God s Spirit, may from time to time form into various ministries, but the greater Church involves any valid ministries all-together, including even isolated individuals. That s how to define the Body, the full Church. In other words, the faithful Spirit-led followers of our Lord, in whichever affiliation they elect to become a part of. These are the Church of God. No individual ministry has exclusive claim to be considered the Church! You Have a Little Strength Now, strength is another area of consideration. Individual ministries can be strong or weak, depending on their zeal, and depending on the degree they allow God s Spirit to operate within. Sole minister organizations are most vulnerable to selfinflicted weakness. In them, the prestige of the sole can become the paramount consideration, and under that approach, the multitude of counsel principle is likely to be marginalized. Competence of subordinates is also regarded with suspicious disregard, to the degree it could be seen as competing with the eminent stature of the sole.

41 C h a p t e r T e n Two of the Church Eras addressed in Revelation 2 & 3 have been described in various ways and at various times. A surprising array of deductions have been put forth to establish the credibility of one Organization over Another. Have we been as Clear-thinking as we should have been in our Presumptions? A number of evangelical churches recognize that the messages to the seven churches in Revelation s 2 nd and 3 rd chapters present a student of the Bible with more than one insightful consideration. First there is the obvious historical application of the messages to each of those seven actual congregations, second is the typical application where any church in any age (or any individual) could exhibit any of these seven characteristics. But it s a third consideration that s the most controversial, that these represent seven successive Church Eras extending in order through the entire Church Age. Not an Exclusive Teaching It was as a pre-teen in an evangelical Baptist Church in the mid-1950 s that I was first made aware of the idea of church eras. However, their series of successive church identities and key developments that marked the transitions from one era to the next differed considerably from those that I later heard described by the Worldwide Church of God a few years later. The evangelical genre recognizes various developments within the protestant movement, where the Church of God excludes from its lineage those denominations that embraced various apostate teachings from Catholic or Protestant theology. Not the least of which is a rejection of Commandment-keeping and a Sabbathkeeping tradition which has existed from the earliest days to the present. Others include the immortal soul and the triune Godhead concept. Now, one thing I will credit that Baptist Church for making clear is that they did maintain a distinct historical line of succession not from within the Catholic Church. They made a point of the fact that the true church was not a derivative of the apostate establishment that came into being after 41 the third century. However, there were sufficient theological commonalities, to some degree, to identify with the Protestant movement, but at armslength. I recall one Baptist minister making a distinct point that the true church was not Protestant, it was not born of the protestant movement, its history was always distinct and separate of that. This was insightful in its own right, but one can t be sure that it s a view shared by all evangelicals. Historical Succession But, within either camp, one underlying concept is consistent: that the true church can be followed down thru the ages to modern times by observing the characteristics it was identified as having by Christ Himself in His messages to the angels of each of these seven churches in Asia Minor. This of course led to the conclusion that the present church era has to be Laodicea, as that s the final era prior to the second coming. The Baptist conclusion, even in the 1950 s, was that we today represent the Laodicean attitude. Considering our laid-back, prosperous condition since the end of World War II, that idea isn t all that incredible. The obvious tepid spirituality of modern believers easily reinforces the conclusion. Though these two approaches are similar in certain respects, there s also a distinct difference. It s alleged that one can use these messages to identify which of the various church movements was or is the one true church in its day! Nowhere is this more strongly asserted than in and among the various worldwide groups that emerged from the now fractured parent organization. It was upon this idea that the foundation was laid for a number of things that account for the situation we find among our various church groups today.

42 A Unique Trajectory As the Worldwide organization grew and gained potency during the 1950 s thru the late 1980 s, the church eras teaching was overemphasized and embellished with unique speculations. The point of doing so was to identify this one organization as being the one true church. One could easily verify that, we were told, by noting its brotherly love as we could see exhibited among members. (Of course, that is not unique. It isn t hard to find churches that are far more loving than we were, but that s an aside.) We identified with this loving characteristic sufficiently to lay claim to the Philadelphian identification. Never mind the realities! But, more than this, the identification was used to keep the membership tightly enfolded within this one organization with the resultant claim that this is proof of it being the one true church. To be identified with or affiliated with any other church was to be in either a false church, or at best, to be of that other one: the lukewarm Laodicea. The worldwide organization touted itself as being the true and the only Philadelphia. This furthered its exclusivist stance and worked to keep the membership self-focused and loyal. To do less, it was alleged, ones salvation could be forfeit. This served its purpose for a time, but later developments threw an unexpected curve ball into the crowd. Because, you see, that Philadelphian organization deliberately departed from its former belief system to embrace what had been previously deemed rank apostasy! This created a whole new set of considerations. The Philadelphian organization was then branded by a number of its former members as Laodicean. That was convenient, though not accurate, if the description of them being lukewarm was to be applied. The body of the former organization imposed its new beliefs rather determinedly. There was little actual lethargy, at least from the administrative levels. There was no lukewarmness. The reoriented entity was decidedly cold! And, as is now evident, its advocacy had been well entrenched within all along! Downside Up Now, with the doctrinal overthrow having been so firmly imposed, how could anyone allege that same 42 identification as before? Nor could one allege the same brotherly love component considering all of the ill-treatment of those who held on to former teachings. A new momentum emerged at this point to re-identify the true Philadelphians. And, wouldn t you know, each separated group saw themselves as being IT, while regarding all others who separated as they did as being Laodiceans! Not an Organization You see, it was the misconception, that these seven messages were churches rather than eras. That laid the base for the earlier conclusions. They were written to churches originally, (under their historic application) but eras are spans of time, not religious organizations per se. One era can span a number of organizations, a number of generations and include multiple organizations simultaneously. They did in the past. Eras are eras, churches are churches. We should not blur the two. But the doctrinal overthrow of the parent organization of this generation if nothing else gave rise to the need to reidentify who represented Philadelphia and who was that (by us despised) Laodicean entity. It was especially curious to see the convoluted explanations that emerged after the new administration changed its organization s doctrinal paradigms so thoroughly. Here, what had been considered Philadelphia was now re-identified by its separatists as Laodicea. The segment that came out of that Laodicean environment now pronounced themselves to be the true Philadelphians. Yet not one ounce of doctrinal fervor was added to the zeal level of the membership over what had been while in the original organization. Nor did those re-established organizations press them to have more, other than for them to exhibit the same degree of resolute loyalty toward them that had once been required in their former group. Strange Developments Indeed So, Philadelphia was described as having become Laodicean and a new Philadelphia emerged by withdrawing from within what was now that Laodicean group. This has to be seen as a curious reasoning process to put it mildly. While earlier the theology of the parent group had insisted that no two church eras exist at the same time, (to bolster its exclusivist position) that position was

43 conveniently laid aside. The alternative considerations were unthinkable! More recent divisions that have occurred within the genre have produced similar identifications. I am aware of one organization, possibly two, that later emerged from within one of these re-identified Philadelphian groups, who then regarded themselves as the true Philadelphians, while labeling their recently severed membership now as having become Laodicea. One Era Morphing Into the Next? Did this situation exist in any previous church era? Did any one of them emerge from within their preceding era, or were each raised up as separate entities, consisting of all newly called-out peoples? Did any era ever pass the baton to their successor era as was alleged recently? There s no precedent of such a thing ever happening. It leaves us with the question, WHO IS Laodicea really and who IS Philadelphia? At one time it was alleged that the Philadelphian era would extend right up to the time of the Church s flight to a place of safety. 25 The Laodicean era was identified as that short period between the flight of the Philadelphians to the Second Coming, with that church being severely persecuted, and with many martyred nearly at the onset (in that they aren t going to be protected). This was a potent tool to develop resolute loyalty in the Philadelphian membership. No-one wanted to be found in that other group and experience its tribulations! Leaving aside the obvious flaws in such reasoning, such as the shortness of the time period described (only 3½ years) and the intensive persecutions to be endured by that remnant, ( how can one be lukewarm under such extreme duress? ), 26 unthinking members carried on with the assurance that all was well as it had been determined in this regard. God s Spirit Within Where we might be deficient in our thinking is in our underlying presumption. Some deem all church groups other than theirs inferior, despite the one 25 Evangelist Gerald Waterhouse made these points very emphatically. Request the transcript of his 1980 sermon, similar to many given in his eleven around-the-world trips. 26 Revelation 12:6; 14 & 17. essential quality: The indwelling of God s Spirit. In order to be A church of God, God s Spirit must be in them, even Laodicean people. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his! (Rom. 8:9) Wouldn t the converse also be true? Anyone who is called into one of the true churches of God, whether a congregation or an Era, he is one of God s true Saints. Then, on the basis of what would we harbor a low regard toward such people? A simple answer that would make the most sense is that it allows one believer, in his own mind, to imagine himself elevated in stature over other brethren. It is the opinion of too many, even yet, that ones chosen affiliation can make a person Philadelphian or Laodicean, without there being one iota of difference within ones character when making such a switchover! But, thinking is that shallow too much of the time. Laodicean today, Philadelphian tomorrow, or is it simply a matter of ones affiliation? Indelible Characteristics But what criteria do we use to determine who is a true Laodicean? Can a leopard change its spots? Would a change of its habitat make any difference? No, the spots go with the animal. A new habitat doesn t change their markings! So why would a change of affiliation make any difference in the nature and character of an individual Christian? Frankly it doesn t change our real selves, and those who deceive themselves into thinking such a thing is consequential are simply being self-delusional. What we are is what we are. If we are Laodicean in attitude and responsiveness, it makes little difference where we plant our ample buttockials. Identifying with one ministry over another in our time is no different than it was in the days of Paul, Apollos and Cephas. Those who regarded themselves as being OF one of those or OF another are just as carnally oriented as believers were in the first century. (see 1 st Cor. 1:12 & 3:1-4) Is it all that different when someone in this age does a very similar thing? Are we not carnal. Paul asks? Christ addressed the Laodicean condition in clear terms. We need to consider their condition before making casual determinations as to ones true 43

44 assignment. His assessment of Laodicea was, And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Rev. 3:14-18) Having a ministry that acted as though it wasn t accountable to anyone, other than God, members were discouraged from knowing them by their fruits. No amount of scrutiny was allowed toward the minister, especially the top-ranking ministry. Such was proclaimed to be tantamount to judging God. The attitude was taken that God would not allow the minister to be or do anything wrong. And, if he did, God would correct him! We were reminded that God would never reveal anything to the likes of you! This expressed the disdain held by the ministry toward the members. Being held in such a low regard bolstered our reluctance to respond as a true Christian should. WE Need DO Nothing! But to the previous era, Philadelphia, He said, And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Rev. 3:7-10) Now, what would it involve for a member of one group to transform their attitudes and their zeal to become the other? These characteristics are dramatically different! Yet we have people who think that to be OF one era as opposed to another is a matter of simply re-identifying themselves with a different organization. A person s underlying zeal level isn t given a second thought. How We Were Trained to Be When we consider the general attitude among the membership of the late twentieth century, we are presented with some sobering realizations. Whatever personal enthusiasm there might have been in individual members, we were all nurtured to become somewhat reticent in our expressions. Such an approach made the membership pointedly non-responsive to even the most egregious things. We were submissive, we were passive, we were not inclined to discuss matters with anyone, even if we did become alerted to something amiss. The membership, under pressure when needed, came to regard themselves as not responsible for anything. After all, the leadership God s true ministry was His sole responsibility, or so we reasoned. As a result, members exhibited no real concern for the welfare of Christ s Bride. Since we d concluded that it wasn t our purview to monitor what was happening or respond to anything, it was declared to be left up to God. While imagining ourselves to be in need of nothing we extended that also to matters of great importance, such as holding fast to the Truth and not denying His Name, as Revelation 3:8 commends Philadelphia for doing. We felt that since we needed nothing materially, by extension, we also needed to DO nothing responsively! Thus, we were trained to be Laodicean, while not being aware of it. The joke was on us! (Or, at least, some of us.) Who s a real Philadelphian and who is a real Laodicean is a matter of zeal, how we respond to the mandate of our calling, to hold fast to the Truths once delivered to the true Ministers of God. It isn t determined by ones affiliation alone! But that silly presumption illustrates so well our aloof self-deception. 44

45 C h a p t e r E l e v e n Much has been said to this point regarding what was wrong with Government As it was practiced in the Worldwide organization. We now should investigate What the New Testament sets forth regarding this Important subject. Those whose religious experience exposed them to nothing other than a hierarchal approach to how their particular church was governed are at a loss to fathom how it could (or should) be any other way. Our generation views the situation as though it has, throughout history, always been as it is today, forgetting that the means of communication, as well as the religious persecution factor, from the second through the nineteenth centuries, would have made a singular governing authority a virtual impossibility on a wide scale. In the modern era, much has been made of a few passages which were taken as though justifying a chain-of-command authority structure within the Church. Those passages are primarily Ephesians 4:11 and 1 st Corinthians 12:28. It is a common conclusion that there must be government in the church. True to a point, but what matters is the kind of government. There are those forms which elevate those governing, while others place the governed in higher regard. There are approaches which totally subjugate the ecclesia 27 while others have the membership be in control of their own concerns. Our challenge is to determine which approach is the more biblical. Who Runs the Show? Should it be a clergy class completely dominating the average members, or should it be the members choosing and being in control of their leadership? Or, is the correct biblical model one where both approaches are duly accommodated? 27 God s elect are at tines referred to by the Greek word ecclesia which is translated called-out ones. 45 While various people make their case one way or the other, we must seriously consider that Christ laid down a fundamental instruction that His disciples were to not operate the way other organized entities normally do. His Church was to be very different, one which was unique in how it carried out its mission. IF You Love One Another While there are people who insist the Church MUST have government, in support of their own idea of what is the accepted approach, (which is basically true) we should realize that it also must have LOVE. There are forms of government which make love a minor consideration, (especially the domineering kinds), where others provide an environment that accommodates a more brotherly approach. Those that are the domineering type want any love that is expressed to be reflected more toward those who lord-it-over them than toward one another! And, the unmotivated prefer never-the-less to fund those who take all authority unto themselves. 28 Let s consider three basic instructions that should be foremost when envisioning a form of government that would meet the criteria Christ specified. 1. True disciples are identified by this evident quality: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this 28 This is not a new thing, as we see in Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

46 shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. 2. All are to regard themselves as brethren : But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matt. 23:8) Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (v.10) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. (John 15:15) Even the relationship of Christ with His disciples conveyed a personal relationship that is largely denied under a two-tier clergy / laity situation! 3. Each disciple is to be submissive to one another; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Eph. 5:21) If we encounter any religious entity that doesn t incorporate these qualities, (may we call them the first principles?) should we regard their form of government as not fully legitimate? That raises another question: Can a ministry that God seems to be using employ a form of government that He doesn t necessarily endorse? Are love, brotherlylevel relationships and mutual submissiveness qualities important in the True Church of God? A Right Foundation It s from this perspective that we should view each of the additional factors that we accept as the appropriate form of government in the Church of God. When any accepted administration creates an environment which is not conducive to each of these: love, equality and mutual submission, we should qualify our support of such organizations, be they large or small. The Diotrephes situation as related in 3 rd John 9-10 is one such example. In verse 11 John, continuing in context, labels such a situation as evil. That man took preeminence to himself alone, even ragging on a true apostle who he saw as a threat to his elevated status should they have contact with people in his jurisdiction. We need to ask, what would such interaction have done to Diotrephes reputation or control? We should also note that in this abnormal situation Diotrephes never would have regarded himself as subject to any superior leader. Just in the fact that John didn t oppose the man on that basis suggests the early Church didn t see itself as having one. Why refer to a man s self-assigned preeminence, knowing that someone else had the preeminence, but not mentioning it? Does that situation suggest that the man wasn t teaching the truth correctly? John makes no reference to his theology, only his jealous regard for his status among his people. So, may we deduce that the man was teaching the truth correctly, but had a problem in another area? There are multiple lessons to be drawn from this one brief example. The relevant question is, does it have application in our time? Authority or Service? It s when we move into the apostles / prophets / evangelists area of interpretation where peoples presumptions can form a basis for an approach to government that places the above three important principles aside in some peoples thinking. It is no longer love, equality and submission, it shifts over to be mostly a matter of authority. As some people read Ephesians 4:11 and 1 st Corinthians 12:28, they, in their minds, interpolate into it the idea of ascending ranks of authority. While crosscomparisons between these two key passages should raise a question or two as it might regard an ascending ranks idea, yet the fundamental presumption holds among those who advocate a two-tier ranking structure. My study paper Ministry Chosen by God presents an analysis of what each office involves (if we can call them that). We all too often don t make any clear distinction between each separate service function other than to assign them ascending levels of authority. In other words, it is posed that an apostle is highest in rank, higher than a prophet, a prophet is higher than an evangelist, and an evangelist is superior to a lowly pastor! Of course, the first-second-third order in 1 st Corinthians 12:28 contradicts the idea in that it skips over evangelist and pastor, placing a specific hard number on just three. If prophet is second, and teacher is third, then where do the others rate? 46

47 It must be fourth or lower (if a ranking system is the point which it is not). When we correctly understand what Paul is saying in each of these places, and when we identify each as a service function involving differing personal proclivities and spiritual gifts, not really a ranking system at all, then the true significance of the functions comes to the fore. Honoring the Local Pastor When we notice verses like Hebrews 13:7&17 and 1 st Timothy 5:17, we are instructed in something very important. We are instructed as to how we are to regard those who serve among us personally. These instructions are more often assigned to those who serve in the highest offices, where they actually apply to those who serve us in their / our respective congregations: the local pastor! The greater honor is due those who know us and work with us on a personal basis, not so much to those who serve in some far-off office, with whom we never interact, who likely don t even know our names, let alone must they give personal account for our spiritual state under their watch as must the local pastor. These instructions obviously direct our regard to the local pastor, not some high-ranking administrator off in another part of the world. Of course, there were no such people in the early church, at least, not like the situation we have today. Administration then was local, of necessity. There may have been occasional visits by travelling apostles or evangelists, but they moved on. Their authority was in the Word, not in any established structure. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 st Tim. 5:17) Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Heb.13:7&17) The passage in 1 st Timothy 5 is interesting as it makes two points: those who rule locally (the elders) are to receive our highest regard, but also financial consideration for their service. And from where would that come? There was no central treasury in the early Church. Such remuneration would have been provided by the local congregation in appreciation for their elder s service, the quality of which being well known to them! When we realize that congregations in the early church were all local, these verses are seen in a very different light. It also explains how the Diotrephes situation could have existed. In Hebrews 13, the identity of the local pastor or elder is even more apparent. They are held to account for the spiritual conditions of those in their care. Our highest regard is directed toward them, not some remote administrator or high- ranking official. But even more interesting, these passages make oblique reference to the same essentials: love, equality and submission. Local but Not Entirely Independent While each congregation was self-administered in many ways, each was not entirely autonomous, as some protestant churches insist upon being. What brings this to our awareness are the passages in 1 st Timothy, chapter 3. There the terms bishop and deacon are how the terms were translated. These can leave a modern reader with certain misconceptions in that these terms are not correctly rendered, at least not in the KJV, which was translated under the oversight of King James and with the understandings of the time. (And we should note that it was the local congregation that evaluated their qualifications, not elders from some other area.) Bishop should be rendered as overseer. That would be a seasoned minister who had other local pastors (Elders and hopefully elders in a truer sense) within his realm or responsibility. More of a senior pastor role. This may equate to a regional pastor situation. Deacon is another term which is greatly misunderstood. Most regard a deacon as the lowest level servant in the church, where no New Testament 47

48 scripture supports that. (The first supposed deacons in Acts 6 (the original Greek does not refer to them as that) were actual stand-ins for the Apostles, and, they were all nominated by the membership!) My co-authored article Doctrine of Deacons presents a very revealing analysis of this office. No, a deacon is not a low-level servant, he is a servant or minister. That s what the Greek word deacon means. By leaving it untranslated, the apostate church was able to change the meaning to suit its own hierarchal purposes. A deacon is more correctly defined as, and applied to, the local elder, serving as minister over a flock. They typically would serve one congregation, where the overseer would mentor and watch over more than one congregation within his sphere of interest and influence. But a deacon is a title appropriate to anyone who serves, not just to someone who attends to menial tasks. The challenge in this age is how to adapt these considerations to the modern world. With all the means of communication that we have today, and with the greatly expanded mission that is now possible, how do we organize these efforts for maximum effectiveness? 29 On To Greater Organization While collaboration involving a larger contingent of believers has its merit, and is a logical development, when so doing, which of the previously mentioned aspects are to be forfeited? Should love be diminished or redirected primarily toward the leadership? Should brotherly equality be dispensed with? Should submission be made applicable to the various levels of administration and not generally among all of God s called-out ones? Individuals or congregations may choose to associate with an outreach ministry, but should they surrender their senses of discernment in order to do so? Congregations may also be raised up by such a ministry involving people who were drawn by their message. Are these then not subject to those first principles that applied in established pre-existing congregations from the beginning of the Church eras? How DO Organizations Factor-in? It is here that we need to define the role of organizations (ministries) and the leadership structure that history (and scripture) shows, come and go over time. When a man, or group of men, is used of God in proclaiming His truth, what regard should we have for them and what regard should they have for others being used similarly? (This would be an unthinkable question in some organizations which regard themselves as being God s sole ministry.) It is at this point where ministries can go off the reservation (which may be an appropriate way of wording it). Much depends on who the minister thinks he is working for. Is it for those God the Father has called, or is it for themselves and their personal prestige? Is he using the people for his personal aggrandizement, or is he working to make them fit vessels of service by God? There are those who may say one thing, but effectively do the other. The other major area of concern is how much of our personal and congregational responsibilities are forfeit when affiliating with that particular ministry? Does congregational oversight become inappropriate should they choose to affiliate with a particular ministry? 30 Once an organization is formed, can it be counted upon to self-correct? If the membership are to know them BY their fruits and if they are to prove all things, if they are to honor those who rule over them, they MUST continually evaluate their actions, their teachings and their results (or lack thereof). Are we to honor the dishonorable, and faithfully follow the fruitless? Growth in Grace, Knowledge and Service More than these considerations, we must also know the fruits of the organization in general. One important question we must always be attentive to: Does the organization provide an appropriate environment for spiritual growth? Are members being allowed useful service opportunities and are they being trained to themselves be fishers of men? Isn t this what the Church is ultimately for: to provide a training environment? Does the official ministry mentor and encourage individual growth, 29 The first mentioned was soon martyred, the second named was sent on an extraordinary evangelistic mission shortly after! One travelling minister insisted God would never reveal anything to the likes of you, which exposed the general disrespect of that group s membership.

49 or does it pointedly suppress personal initiative, interpreting such to be only an expression of selfpromotion and prideful vanity? Do they restrict teaching functions to themselves only? Hierarchal structures tend to erect a clear barrier between the clergy and the laity, jealously guarding their sole God-ordained status, as they see it. The I will make you fishers of men promise could not have been made with only the original apostles in mind. If it were just them, the Work of God would have faded out late in the first century. So, obviously no, they were to train their replacements and those the replacements to come into the Truth after them. Training the upcoming generation in the ways of God and the true Doctrines is a never-ending activity. It will always be the dynamic that perpetuates the Work of God on Earth. WHO s the Major Interest with God? The problem arises when the leadership sees itself (or himself) as the major entity, over and above the lowly membership. When human vanity overwhelms the structure, creating a we only, or worse yet, a Me only syndrome, the full function of the Church of God isn t achieved. The congregation loses the dynamism that each Spirit-led member would otherwise contribute to the Body. Such a deficiency is endemic within hierarchal organizations. That s one reason why Christ instructed His disciples to NOT BE that way! 31 Jesus specifically addressed the natural desire of men to see themselves as superior to their peers. (Spiritually superior or authoritatively superior, we never made the distinction). He did so because He knew what the result would be. Knowing where it would lead, He specifically prohibited them from employing that approach. It arose even among His disciples (which brought the matter to the fore) where there was a desire of some disciples to be regarded as the greatest. He made it clear that He would recognize as greatest those who served the most, never those who postured and stepped on others to gain preeminence. To comprehensively understand government as it should be in the Church of God, we must factor-in the role of the congregation. This is the part that is typically abrogated by the people, rather than for them to engage in doing what their calling obligates them to do. Go Into All the World Besides overseeing the performance of their elders, the local congregations are to also be active in proclaiming the Gospel in all the world. Such activity is not the exclusive domain of the ministry. In Thessalonica the congregation was commended for its outreach in its region in imitation of their Judean counterparts. We read of that in the first two chapters of 1 st Thessalonians, particularly chapter 1 verse 8. Quite notable is the absence of mention of any local pastor in this effort. Was it because they had none, or was it a group effort, not a minister dominated activity? In Corinth, there was a situation where Paul had corrected the congregation. Incredibly, the whole congregation responded appropriately, repenting of their attitude. Again, no local minister is credited for facilitating this response. Their repentance was a reflection of their collective conversion, not an imposition by someone in charge. (2 nd Cor. 7:) Early on when there was an obvious need in the area of service to the brethren, such as we read in Acts 6, the congregation then was called-upon to set forth those who had proved themselves as able, to assist (actually stand-in for) the apostles at the time. They would have been in the best position to know them by their previous services. Such an approach is not maintained in modern organizations. Would we have been better served had it been maintained? These were not some lowlevel appointees, as we can see from what happened with at least the first two named: Stephen 32 and Philip 33. It was the exclusion of those truly called of God from their proper role in God s Church, instead, choosing to create a ministerial class to rule over them (in contradiction of what Jesus told them) that accounts for the sad conditions in the Churches of God in this age. But without maintaining the fundamental elements: love, equality and mutual submission, those efforts can be little better than sounding brass and a clanging cymbal! Acts 6:8 through 7: Acts 8:4-8 & 8: Luke 22:24-27; Matthew 20: st Corinthians 13:

50 C h a p t e r T w e l v e Few things have impacted the Church of God as did the Unique Experiences which developed in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. The Value of those Experiences can VARY widely, depending on How they are Perceived. For the eighteen centuries between the end of the Apostolic Age and the Modern Era, the Church of God existed under rather humble circumstances. Well after its founding years, most congregations remained small and scattered. There was no major organizational entity, at least none visible, for a number of reasons: Persecution being one that inescapably comes to mind. Congregations were often known to have assembled in homes of the believers, not in buildings dedicated to assembly. Remaining Hidden When we understand the complex and dangerous religio-political conditions that dominated the first, second and third centuries, we can appreciate why it was important for the Church to maintain a rather low profile. The Roman Empire required the worship of its Emperor. While the Jewish religion was tolerated and to some degree exempted from this pagan demand, the Jews in time proved no real friend to early Christianity. Judaism may have provided some degree of sanctuary for the early Church from their Roman oppressors, but as time progressed, the schism with them widened. The decades following the deaths of the original Apostles were not particularly kind to the Church. Heresies grew and religious rivalries began to take form, some based on doctrinal divergences with even more based on carnal desires for power and prestige. We see this phenomenon affecting even a local congregation, exhibiting the Diotrephesian effect, where even the beloved Elder and Apostle John was excluded from having contact with believers in the congregation under that man s control. Political Acceptance and Apostasy doctrinal disputes that provided reason for the early councils, first called by the unconverted (and as yet un-baptized) Emperor Constantine. His ultimate quest was for religious unity to bolster the political unity within his Empire, not any real interest in doctrinal accuracy per se. At this time, bishops dominated certain regions, but were not politically subservient to any central or controlling authority. That was to change! But, where was the Church theologically during those intervening two centuries? The pages of scripture attest to heresies that crept-in from time to time. Some heresies were countered, at least in writing, but history shows that much was retained to undermine the defenders of the Truth, and the more so as time passed. With the acceptance of Christianity within the Empire in the early fourth century, a political structure developed, not one conceived, recognized or authorized by the original Apostles, but one patterned after the Roman political structure, in other places referred to as the beast! (Rev. 13:14) What congregations there were that remained faithful to the Truth of God, as found in the Pure Word, were continually challenged, ever the target of Satan and his spiritual forces and his human agents. (Rev. 12:) Through the next 1260 years, the True Church existed in wilderness conditions, unorganized, never prominent, never influential. Conditions became so bad, that by the time of the Inquisitions, it was a serious capital offense to even possess a copy of scriptures. Thus, much had to be committed to memory, and not to writing. To be regarded as a minister, of anything but the official church (by this time theologically corrupted beyond hope), and to disagree with its dogma or authority By the early fourth century, we see evidence of a certain amount of regional organization, but by that time much had changed doctrinally. In fact, it was could warrant extreme torture and a painful death. 50

51 What congregations there were, were of necessity small and hidden and are relatively obscure even in the pages of history. Truth was spread by direct personal witness, not public proclamation! 35 Thus, what Truth there was, remained hidden, and was spread covertly. There certainly could ve been no organized structure in the true Church during the dark ages. Persecutions guaranteed that! Where these considerations are relevant, is the idea that the Church of God was organized and was administered by a structured hierarchy of men at any point in time. That issue came to the fore in recent decades. It definitely was not the case historically. It couldn t have been the case, not under the degree of extreme persecutions that the True servants of God had to endure through so many generations. Any such structure that there was, existed within the apostate establishment, not the Church of God. History shows that such organization functioned more to suppress truth and enforce error: Little changed in its late-era manifestation. Reference to any such structure had to be of that apostate entity, as it alone had a historic legacy. The Light Re-emerges After the 1260 years, conditions began changing, and quite dramatically. The printing of and legal dissemination of Scriptures opened a whole new world of enlightenment and reformations, though under much of the residual darkness and theological biases that had dominated previous centuries. Only gradually did the original truths re-emerge to become better understood. It took generations for the basic Truths of the Law, the Sabbaths, the Resurrections, the Nature of God, the illustration of prophecy within Biblical Holydays and the Millennial Kingdom on earth to be restored among God s people. And, it didn t come all that easily! For the next few generations, the Church of God continued, small and isolated. Poor travel and communication options dictated as much. But as civilization progressed, the world became smaller in a sense, making it possible to interact with others of like belief to a far greater degree than ever before. 35 Do we see the important reason for the Great Commission being worded as it is? Going into all the world as a witness was to be the primary means of spreading the Gospel for some sixteen centuries. Little else would ve been possible. This was the Church of God, as we would have found it in the two or three centuries before our parent s generation. Mostly small local congregations, generally isolated from one another, each having varying degrees of understanding of the basic Truths of the Word. Though free at last, to function without severe persecutions, there was no common standard of beliefs by which to evaluate where each stood, nor was there any general oversight among and between congregations. Enter General Conferences With new forms of communication and easier travel, it became easier for widely-spread congregations to associate with each other. General Conferences were formed with intent to enhance the ability of these congregations to collectively do the work of evangelizing the world more widely and more effectively. It was into this relatively new culture that a man with certain talents was called from his worldly orientation to be used in a prominent way. We are ever blessed for the experiences resulting from that calling, though not all of us have correctly appreciated what it was we should have gained from it. As the final generation of the peoples of God came to be, the Church as it then existed was still scattered, somewhat diverse in its understandings and subject to incessant splits. (And, where have we seen those lately?) Events of the early 1930 s saw the separation of one man out from one of the General Conferences: This to pursue certain understandings that were largely spurned by the consensus-type church administrations of that era. His ministry became a movement that eventually drew thousands into a renewed understanding of many Biblical Truths lost in preceding generations. The Churches of God that had existed previously had embraced the general malaise of their protestantish counterparts. It was at this point that God intervened to refresh and reinvigorate His Church. He opened the mind of one man to many dormant points of Truth long lost to modern believers. Much of the Word had been rendered confusing and profoundly obscure under the narrow theological positions of the world s religions of the day. Few truly understood 51

52 the importance of the Law, not as the means for salvation, but as the logical response to graciously having been given it. Heaven is not the eternal repose of the dead, multiple resurrections have a vital place in God s Plan for humanity, and we are to become Spirit-Born members of the ruling Family of God here on earth in the Millennial Age. To many believers, these old Truths were NEW! God raised up a WORK within His overall Church that re-introduced many essential Truths. Those Truths had a great relevance in preparing the Bride for her impending involvement. A Multi-Level Education Though refreshed with new understandings of old dormant Truths, there were other lessons contained within the experiences that were not adequately understood by the majority. The Church learned that it did not need to be weak and despised, at least not for its poor and scattered state. A degree of unity could elevate its overall presentation into something quite respectable. Witness the campuses and the educated, cultured ministry. (Not that all were exemplary.) Scholarship flourished for a time, publications gained respect and presented the Truth plainly to millions, whether they responded to it or not. At least that all-important seed was planted. (Mk. 4:3-9 & 13-20) But with respectability came other phenomena. In time, the organization itself became the primary focal entity, and the real purpose of its educational effort was to some extent obscured! It was posed in later years that the Church was just this one organizational entity. The idea gained acceptance that there were no other true churches or true members of the Church outside of this one Work. Also, the idea began to gain acceptance within the minds of those being educated, that to leave this one organization was to forfeit ones salvation. In spite of the history, even that of its founder, of stepping out from under the control of boards and councils that dictated understandings and practices, for anyone further to consider that option, was declared spiritually lethal. Under that premise, a new degree of control overcame the membership. Now, this reasoning may have had a certain benefit during our early educational years, but perpetuating it thru ones entire lifetime effectively put a cap on personal development. The mindset dictated that sheep must always remain obedient (subservient) as sheep. Decades upon decades of training were considered the ultimate objective. Actual use of such training wasn t a real consideration. So in this way, though the training of God s People may have prepared them for carrying out God s Great Commission, any inclination to use that training, together with any Talent God might have awarded the individual member, created a negative reaction against that individual by the sanctioned ministry. God saw all this. Was it really what He wanted? The Central Treasury Even at the late date of the 1940 s there was no idea of a central treasury, a development which had a profound impact on the conduct of internal Church affairs, making greater degrees of control possible through financial constraints. The early Church knew of no such arrangement nor did the Church through the Dark Ages. That never prevented the preaching of the Gospel. In fact, it was the central treasury and considerations with regard to having one that brought the Church full circle with respect to its organizational model. That story is as insightful as it is profound. (Known to many is the fact that having a central treasury opens the possibility for fiscal corruption, but that s a story for another time.) In the early years, the Church of God was adamant that the early New Testament Church had no preeminent leadership structure. It was affirmed that Peter was not the first pope, and that the hierarchal structure of the universal church was a far cry from how the Church thru the ages was structured. As early as 1939 such affirmation was published. As late as 1973 such affirmation was preached. Integrity through Authority But as the organization gained momentum, and as internal controls began to be challenged, the need was seen for a mechanism to maintain tight control on all decision-making, policy and administration. Despite the previous affirmation, a drift toward a 52

53 hierarchal structure gained acceptance, especially among those highly placed. We can argue that it was what God wanted, in order to preserve the integrity of the organization. At least that was the justification. Authority was seen as a means to counter internal schisms. Commendable intentions, on the surface at least. So, how did that work out for us? The Nicolaitan Effect While men covet power and control, it actually exhibits a lack of faith to not leave certain developments in God s hands. Attempting to shore up against divisive forces from without, and especially those from within, the course that was intended to help preserve the organization actually helped facilitate its demise. History now shows that! By embracing that very political structure that we originally held in contempt, (rightfully so!) one which Christ specifically said that He hates, we set ourselves up for that thing we were attempting to forestall! You see, that structure, after just a few years, provided the means of imposing a wholesale repudiation of Truth upon the Church. What happened could not have happened without that over-lording structure and central treasury. The people of God were allowed no say. The pillars and grounds of the Truth (1 st Tim. 3:15) were effectively neutralized from their God-ordained function. Those who resisted the imposition were forced to re-organize outside. (Rev. 3:12) So much for the premise that to leave that organization was tantamount to forfeiting ones salvation! Salvation is not a function of organizational loyalty. Love of the Truth and the indwelling of God s Spirit is the effective determination. We should have known that all along! What Does God Want? Our question is, did God disapprove of what was being developed, or did He use that to further His ultimate intent? Is the situation we see developing even yet in the Church in accord with God s Will or is it in defiance of it? What is that situation? We see the incessant splitting of our organizations into smaller and smaller entities, not unlike our original state in the 1930 s and before. Is this what God wants? If not, how is it that He is unable to counter it? We need 53 to consider that this IS what God intends. While the scattered and under-developed brethren of the 1940 s were holding onto what they still had, (as Revelation 3:3-4 admonishes), God called together those who could hear what the Spirit says unto the Churches. They were reintroduced to many fading Truths, and the congregations overall were refreshed to a major degree. This was the Worldwide experience. A faithful few were called together into one particular educational forum to be better educated in God s Way. It was never His intent that we remain closeted in that educational environment forever without being sent back out into the world, as His Great Commission intends. Being that the educational institution turned inward into itself, seeking absolute control and suppression of any Talents God might choose to award, He allowed us to embrace that perverse structure that would assure our self-dissolution. It was not God s intent that we cloister ourselves into one exclusive organization. That s what was missed. The mindset that developed and the political orientation we took on was not what God wanted. All too many seek to replicate that system when they reorganize, as though it was a God-ordained standard of righteousness. Where-ever that system is repeated, God will see to it that it divides them further. He wants His people to be free to employ those Talents as He awards them, not for them to be continually stifled. As things have developed, many have been placed into situations where they are called-upon to step up to the plate and serve in ways they never would ve considered doing under the late era WCG. This is a positive. Under a broader view, we were called together to be re-educated. God used one man to re-introduce many to important Truths that were lacking. It was NOT His intent that we form ourselves into an ultra-exclusive, walled-in fold, but that we spread out into the world to proclaim the Truth in ever expanding venues. We weren t meant to be held in training forever. We were supposed to have graduated at some point. But for them to allow that meant the lessening of control and preeminence (and revenue?) of the august central authority. Lessons and Counter-Lessons While we were taught many fundamental Truths that we wouldn t have discerned fully in the

54 Churches of the previous generation, at the same time there were negative lessons that also could not have been gained except thru the experiences we were exposed to. In dabbling with the idea of hierarchal government, we came to see why it is that Christ hates it as He does. (Rev. 2: 6 & 15) Of course, we never defined it as Nicolaitanism, at least, not in the later years. We now should know the negative effects of that kind of thinking that form of government. God does not want that in His Kingdom, and we now can see exactly why. It wouldn t have been so apparent had someone only explained it to us. Experience in this case was an essential reinforcer. It elevates a man (or men) to inappropriate positions of esteem that places them between the believer and Christ, competing with our personal relationship with Him (a term that was rarely used!). It suppresses the use of Talents that God might place within an individual, inhibiting the growth dynamic and the greater out-spreading of the Word. No, the over-lording of His people is not what Christ wanted in His Church. He wanted us to be re-educated with many of the Truths that were seriously fading in this end-time, and for us to eventually filter back into the various venues where we could re-establish those Truths among others. Doing Great Exploits As we see in places like Daniel 11:32-35, members will be provided opportunity to witness and teach in powerful ways. Not thru a structured ministry, not by a tightly controlled ministry acting on their behalf, but one-on-one in direct personal situations. Some of understanding will be physically abused, murdered even, to refine them further and enhance their stature in the Family of God. These are not the weak (v. 32) but are those who know their God, who shall arise in strength! Even those who might seem the more ineffective will be used by God to prophesy in surprising ways. (Acts 2:17-21 quoting Joel 2:28-32) This is the legacy of that reeducational experience we were provided under the Worldwide CoG of the 1950 s to 1980 s. Some yet have failed to see what God intended by all this, due to a blindness resulting from what we knew as the Government issue. Many are still locked in their perceptual envelope, thinking that 54 it s all about Government. Well, in a way, it is, but it s a matter of whose government. We substituted a man-made institution for our personal and direct obligation to obey God and not men. We are to follow men only as they follow Christ. Early on, we were told that, but in time, things changed. Government made a Primary Doctrine! Where, in the early years, we were told that there was no hierarchal structure in the early Church, that such an idea was anathema, later that was dramatically revised to allege that its all about government, meaning the top-down authority of the ministry within the Church. We were assured that God always works thru just one man. The idea that Peter was indeed the Chief Apostle was used to justify the absolute supremacy of our modern day apostle. Toward the end, it was even declared that the only thing the Catholic Church has right is government! 36 Full circle, or what? While we were exposed to many positive lessons, we also were given negative lessons as well. There are things God wants us to learn that we could not have learned in any other way. The problem is, we still have members who haven t yet realized what all of that was for. They are locked-into this aberrant reasoning, thinking they are obligated to replicate that form of government within their Church where-ever they re-form organizationally. If in fact it ISN T what God wants, will we then see any replica of that governmental structure being broken up by Him? That seems to be the pattern. We are seeing splits upon splits. Every few years, schisms develop, breaking our congregations down into smaller and smaller groups. God called us together into an exclusive group, for a time, in order to re-educate us to some essential Truths. It was NOT His intent that we be kept subjugated within that one group, especially as it hardened into an over-controlling environment of suppression of God-given Talents. It was His intent that we graduate from that college and employ what He allowed us to understand by His Spirit working within us. That s what it all was for! 36 Though rarely re-mentioned after 1987, Melvin Rhodes, in a general message to all UCG congregations in December of 2010, repeated this perverse statement in a critical context.

55 Government in the Church (Thoughts to Ponder) 10/6/12 In any organization of men, there is always the tendency to gravitate toward some form of control mechanism. But in the process of doing that, we often inhibit God s control by human intervention. We tend to draw toward authoritarianism with its inherent exclusivism. Both characteristics were well exhibited in the WCG. Christ specifically instructed His disciples to not operate on that basis. The only way to NOT operate that way is to be totally service oriented. What force would work to stand against a person / persons who attempt to take-over the Church if not the membership? The Supreme Apostle idea was the primary facilitator of BOTH Authoritarianism AND undue Exclusivism. The Apostle had all authority in the Church and since we had the one-and-only true Apostle, we exclusively had to be that one true Church. A doubly binding inter-reaction! Responsibility of the ecclesia: (considered to be passive - subordinate to the ministry) Tent: tension / compression elements opposing pressures from above (gravity) forcing a collapse The tent is the Truth! (as per 1 st Timothy 3:15) Uphold the Truth 1 st Tim 3:15 & 2:8; Rom. 16:17-18; Heb. 4:14 Evaluate the ministry Rev. 2:2; 1Tim. 5:17-22; Heb. 5:14; Matt. 7:15-16 Support the genuine ministry 1Ths. 5:13; Heb. 13:7 & 17 & 24 Mark those who cause divisions Rom. 16:17 Send out emissaries into new areas Support other congregations 1 st Thess. 1:8 Host open conferences that involved membership Acts 15: Speak often to one another Mal. 3:16 Nurture a weak member Rom. 14:1 & 15:1 Prophesy Rom. 12:6; 1 st Cor. 14:31 & 39 Teach Rom. 12:6; Heb. 5:12 Use spiritual gifts Rom. 12:3; Mt. 25:14-46 (Talents: serving the brethren) Search the scriptures daily why? Rom. 12:2; Ac. 17:11 Maintain humility Rom. 12:3 & 10 Maintain ones faith Rev. 16:15; 2:20-21; Tit. 3:8 Serve the interests of the congregation overall Heb. 6:10 & 13:1 Exhort and encourage one another 2Tim. 2:23-26; Heb. 10:24-25 The oversight and custody of the Truth is the mandate of the membership Responsibility of the ministry: (considered to be the essence of the Church to which members adhere) (problem was, the ministry repudiated the Truth, squabbled among themselves and cause break-ups!) Represent the Truth 1Tim. 4:16; 1Tim. 1:3-4; 2Tim. 2:15 & 4:2 & 5 Watch over the Flock 2Cor. 10:13-15 Educate the saints with sound doctrine 1 st Tim. 4:6; Tit. 1:9 & 13 Be attentive to contaminated theology or doctrinal drift 2 nd Tim ; Able to counter errant theologies Tit. 1:9; Prepare the membership for service 2Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:5 Respect the presence of God s Spirit in the individual member Provide an environment for growth Be examples of the Way 1Tim. 4:12; Tit. 2:7-8 Lead by example 1Tim. 5:1-2 Maintain the esteem of the office Tit. 2:15 Meet the criteria given in 1 st Timothy: 1Tim 3:1-7; 3:8-13 The support, edification and protection of the flock is given to the local servant 55

56 Overview of the Record of History and God s Plan for this time: Church through most of history was small, scattered and self-governing No central authority existed, nor could one exist persecutions / inquisitions, etc. This later era had lost certain essential truths from its understanding God called us together under a single umbrella organization to be retrained in lost basic doctrines That organization functioned like a training college It exhibited exclusivist characteristics in order to hold us within the training environment for a time God did not intend we remain held within that single organizational entity forever He then used the organization to test us to determine if we d learned the Truth adequately We were given the opportunity to expose our real loyalty to the establishment or to the Truth The Truth was massively repudiated under our governmental structure God allowed a total official repudiation of teachings in order to motivate those adequately trained That establishment was given over to clearly reprobate doctrines to make it easier for us to see things The proved-it people were segregated from the haven t-proved-it people would only fall later We were then put in an environment needing to go out sometimes on our own! (Re. 3:12) We were left with no recourse against the internal drift God wanted us out of there Staying in place was not remotely possible or acceptable of those who knew the Truth We were put in a situation where we were tested IF we d PROVED what we believed Those who HAD proved all things were non-accepting of the doctrinal repudiations He set those individuals out into various environments in order to train them further He caused the former institution to self-loathe, hating what it had been / changing its name God was no longer in or using that institution He had no further use for it The remnant will be trained further / i.a.w. our gifts and level of training and determination (zeal) It is NOT God s will that we be restored back into one single organization like we were It is our present obligation to take the Truth out into the world This is not the time when our ministry will do it all for us Many (those sufficiently strong) will be tried and purified and made white Dan. 11:32-35 Of them, some will become martyrs for their Faith and dedication Some will need to be protected on account of their underdevelopment or fragility Their demonstration of Faith will determine their appointment level (reward) in the Kingdom It is not His intent that we re-unify at least not until that phase of our training is complete We were allowed further training experiences, which the establishment would have not allowed We are to become major pillars ready for placement in His Temple of Service Some will be purified and made white even further including experiencing martyrdom God knows who is His, and of them who is ready-able and who needs more time Some will need protection as their endurance quotient just isn t as solid (place of safety) What happened was all part of God s Plan for us appreciate your status! Don t lose your crown! We need to zealously take back and exercise our God-given mandate! Considering the END-TIME Church and its being made Ready Thru Adversities (a 96-page, 22 chapter booklet, 8-1/2 x 11) A generation ago, the Church of God considered a phase of its development referred to as making the Bride ready. It was recognized by many that the Church wasn t ready for impending rulership in the Millennial Kingdom of God. Events in the following decades demonstrated that unpreparedness. This booklet considers some of the deeply-rooted fundamental premises that we had incorporated into our organizational culture that were counterproductive to and even detrimental to that readiness. These many chapters each consider one aspect of our unready ness. The many faceted ramifications of the approach to governance that was embraced show a need of serious remediation. The process of the Bride making herself ready involves a broad array of corrective actions. The drift into rank apostasy proved that we had many who did not fathom what was needed, nor were they ready to change. The many splits demonstrate similar operational defects. This booklet is for those who are willing to face correction, and to be made ready for the extreme privilege of being assigned to the Bride of Christ. He is refining His truly called-out ones for that relationship in a most remarkable way. For those who have ears to hear. Request your FREE copy. 56