I thought many would like this ...

Heaven: The Presence of God Thanks to the christocentric website.


What is heaven?

The simplest definition might be "heaven is the presence of God." Could we simplify that even further and say "heaven is God"? No! That would be a logical fallacy, for that would be to make some "thing", some concept, into God, which is the essence of idolatry. But we might invert the equation and say "God is heaven."

In the religion of Judaism there was great respect for God's name. Yahweh was comprised only of consonants, "YHWH". There were no vowels, and the word was thus unpronouncable. It was merely formed breath, which is consistent with the fact that God is Spirit (John 4:24). In order to avoid using God's name, the Jews used other names and designations, substituting other concepts as a circumlocution for the name of Yahweh.

The word "heaven" became a synonym for Yahweh in post-exilic Judaism. This usage is carried over into the New Testament as can be seen in the following gospel usages:

Matthew 21:25 - (Jesus says to the Jewish authorities) "the baptism of John...was it from heaven or from men?"

Matthew 23:22 - "he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it."

Luke 15:21 - (Prodigal son) "I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight."

John 3:27 - (John the Baptist says of Jesus) "A man can receive nothing, unless it has been given to him from heaven."

The equation of God and heaven is also evidenced in the manner in which the gospel writers use the phrases "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" synonymously. Matthew, who wrote his gospel narrative particularly for a Jewish audience, is sensitive to the Jewish evasion of the name of God and uses "kingdom of heaven" in exactly the same contexts where Mark and Luke (writing for Roman and Greek audiences respectively) use the phrase "kingdom of God" (cf. Matt. 13:11; Mk. 4:11; Lk. 8:10). "Kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are not separate eschatological concepts as some have attempted to differentiate them.

John the Baptist, and then Jesus, and then the disciples, all proclaimed to the people of Palestine, "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7). This was the good news of the gospel ­ what God, what heaven, was doing in Jesus Christ.

"Heaven" could be conceived of as the immanence of God's presence in the incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ, and at the same time "heaven" was used of the transcendence of God's presence beyond mankind. Thus it is that Jesus could instruct His disciples to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven....Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." (Matt. 6:9,10). Later in Matthew 7:21 Jesus declares that "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." In this latter reference Jesus seems to use the immanent and transcendent concepts of God's presence in the same sentence.

If "heaven" entails such a wide spectrum of God's presence, then the popular mental conceptions found in many religious circles today are most inadequate. Pictures of clouds, harps, angels, pearly gates, etc., are figures formulated as "concrete" conceptualizations and fixed in the "concrete" of religious dogma. Surely we must pursue an understanding of heaven beyond these inadequate pictures.

In I Corinthians 2:9 Paul quotes from Isaiah 64:4 and does so in the context of the spiritual realities God has made available to Christians in Jesus Christ: "Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him." Is that not true of "heaven," the presence of God, both immanently and transcendently? If it has entered the heart of man, our thinking processes and concepts, then it is probably not an accurate representation of "heaven," of God's presence! God is so much bigger than our finite abilities to conceptualize that any images that we can conceive are but inadequate images which become idols. Perhaps that is why the Jews generally refrain from speculating about "heaven," for it leads to forbidden idolatry. But Christians have always engaged in such speculation!

Would you want to participate in a "heaven" that was only what your mind and heart could conceive? I would not! I have very little imagination! The "heaven" that I could conjure up in my mind would be extremely boring! I am convinced that heaven is not boring. Is love boring? Is joy boring? Our meagre human perceptions of "heaven" would only lead to discontent. They are so static, so selfish, so mercenary, so materialistic, so space/time oriented, so inadequate! Man is made so as to only be content with God! That is why our human aspirations of heart and mind are no basis for revealing "heaven," as some authors have indicated. The character of God is the only basis for revealing "heaven." Heaven is the presence of God, acting as He always does, according to His character.

When it comes to thinking about "heaven," we, with our finite minds, do not even know how to ask the correct questions. Mankind ("religious" people especially), thinking as they most often do, in a futuristic, spatial and temporal framework, ask questions like these:

What will I be like in heaven?
What kind of body will I have? (physical, spiritual, visible, invisible?)
Will I be recognizable? (in form? in personality?)
Will I be able to recognize those I love? (my wife? husband? children?)
What will I be doing in heaven? ("I don't like playing the harp, you know!")
Will heaven be boring to me? (Most human portrayals of such seem to be so.)
Will all of my desires be fulfilled in heaven? (Someone once described heaven as "the presence of everything desirable; the absence of everything undesirable.)
Will I be able to progress, develop or grow in heaven?
Does heaven have any challenges for me? ("I am most satisfied when I am challenged and can achieve and accomplish and overcome.")
What kind of mental or emotional recall will I have in heaven from my time spent on earth?
What will my place of habitation be like?
How big will my "mansion" be?
Will I have more than someone else?
Will someone else have more than me?

Do these latter questions not seem rather mercenary and materialistic? It does not seem to me that we will "possess" anything in heaven. We do not "possess" mansions. We do not "possess" crowns. We do not "possess" salvation. We do not "possess" holiness. We do not "possess" love. We do not "possess" joy. We do not "possess" heaven! God possesses us!

Our questions about "heaven" are framed in such a self-oriented perspective. "What will I be like?" "What will I be doing?" These only reveal that we do not have a clue what heaven is all about!

Heaven is the presence of God. God's presence always implies that He is acting in accord with His character. God's character is summed up in Love. "God is Love" (I John 4:8,16). God's love is total selflessness. Love is concerned only about the other, and the Ultimate Other, God. Then why do we continue to ask all those self-oriented questions with personal pronouns such as "I, me and my"? My present self-concern pollutes my perspective of heaven! My present space/time context of thinking preempts my understanding of eternity, infinity, God and heaven. Ignorance is certainly revealed when we do not even know how to ask the right questions!

Heaven is the presence of God, acting in accord with His character. God is love, unselfish and unselfconscious. To experience "heaven" is to lose our self-orientation and our self-concern. This would seem to reveal that heaven has nothing to do with morality, whether "I" am doing things right! Heaven has nothing to do with dogma and doctrine, whether "I" believe and assent to the right ideas. Heaven is only concerned about, centered upon, the other person and the Ultimate Other, God, who should be our ultimate concern in heaven. That is why it can be said that "religion knows nothing about heaven!" Religion is so caught up in the self-centered me-ism of doing things right and believing the right things, and knows nothing of the loving, joyous, self-giving of heaven.

Heaven is the presence of God. Heaven is the character of God in action. Heaven is what God is and does, not what man does to perform for God, as religion advocates. If that be the case, does concern for heaven produce passivity and inactivity in the one thus concerned? Not necessarily! Necessarily not! God is an active God. His presence is always actively expressing His character in the out-going means of grace. Faith is our receptivity of His activity. God is love. Love is always active, extending out toward the other. There is no such thing as passive love; that is apathy! God is joy. Joy is always energetic and enlivening. Heaven's demeaner is that of humor and laughter and play and activity. Thus I repeat, "Religion knows nothing about heaven," as evidenced by its being so sour and dour and serious about itself, and so passive and inactive in loving others.

Heaven is the presence of God, and subjectively considered, heaven is spiritual ecstasy. The word "ecstatic" is etymologically derived from two Greek words, ek meaning "out of," and stasis which comes from histemi meaning "to stand." It is not difficult to see that that which stands and is unmoving is "static". "Ecstatic" has to do with that which is "out of" the realm of the "static." There is no ecstasy in that which is static, for such is rigid, cold, hard, immovable, dead. Ecstacy is experienced only in that which is dynamic, i.e. alive, active, warm, moving and incomprehensible. Heaven is spiritual ecstasy in that it has to do with the dynamic presence of God in action.

If heaven is the presence of God, does consideration of and concern for "heaven" produce in those thus concerned a form of "escapism" from the present situation? Many have charged that heavenly consideration and expectations lead to an "escapist" mind-set that involves losing interest in living and working in this world. We must admit that such is often the case among religionists who view heaven as merely a futuristic "pie in the sky bye-and-bye," almost an escapist "nirvana" concept. But if heaven is the active and dynamic presence of God ­ God in action in accord with His character ­ then to consider "heaven" is to consider ultimate reality and the divine intent for mankind. The failure and the refusal to consider "heaven," the presence of God, is truly "escapism!" Such is an attempt to "escape" from ultimate reality, an attempt to "escape" from functional humanity, an attempt to "escape" from genuine social interaction. Heaven, the presence of God, invests and infuses the present situation with His activity, His character, His love, His joy, His peace right now, here and now, within those receptive to Him.

Is this to imply then that we have heaven on earth right now? We have seen that heaven became a synonym for God, and is so used interchangeably in the gospels; that the "kingdom of heaven" is the "kingdom of God;" that "heaven" is the presence of God in action. Is God in action on earth right now? Is the presence of God active presently in the world? Is not the message of Christianity, the "good news" that mankind can be reconciled to the presence of God through Jesus Christ?

The earliest proclamation of the gospel by Jesus Himself was "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17), because the presence of God was at hand in Jesus Christ. In the beatitudes, Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:2) Jesus kept telling parables about the "kingdom of heaven" (cf. Matt. 13), explaining the dynamics of new covenant Christianity. Jesus explained that the "key" to the kingdom of heaven was the confession that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:19). The kingdom of heaven/ kingdom of God is present whenever the King is present, for Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:21) or "within you" (KJV). In Ephesians 1:3 Paul explains that "God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus," by the indwelling spiritual presence of Jesus Christ. The writer to the Hebrews indicates that Christians have becomes "partakers of a heavenly calling" (Heb. 3:1), have "tasted of the heavenly gift" (Heb. 6:4), and have "come to the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22).

If heaven is the presence of God, then is the presence of God not actively present among us and within us right now, here on earth, as Christians? Are we not actively participating in the heavenly and spiritual dynamic of the expression of the character of God? Is that not what the Christian life is all about? I believe it is! The heavenly Father is desirous of expressing His character with His spiritual children, Christians, the "People of God." As Christians, we presently participate in the "kingdom of heaven." The presence of the Spirit of God within us allows for the present subjective experiencing of the heavenly blessings of the active expression of His character. We experience "heaven" on earth, the active presence of God.

But I turn right around and declare that what I am saying is not to say that earth is heaven, or even that the church is heaven. To that I would exclaim, "Good heaven, God forbid!"

Does this sound contradictory and confusing? Bear with me as I attempt to explain, hoping not to muddy the waters even more.

Heaven is the continuum of the life that we now have in Christ Jesus. (By the use of the word "continuum" I do not mean merely the distant future continuation of Christ's life, but that there is no discontinuity of content, so it is not just a temporal designation but a substantive consideration of content in the context of eternal duration.)

Again then, heaven is the continuum of the life that we have as Christians. This is true objectively in that the life we have (or participate in) is the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6). Paul refers to "Christ who is our life" (Colossians 3:4). John writes in I John 5:12, "He that has the Son has life; he that does not have the Son of God does not have life." The life that we participate in as Christians, both now and then, presently and in the future is the life of Jesus, eternal life, heavenly reality.

Subjectively, we are presently to be developing an appreciation for the function of Christ's life in our behavior. We are to be involved in the process of growing and developing the extent to which the life of Jesus is allowed to pervade and permeate our soul and body, so as to express God's character in our behavior, characterized by love, joy, peace, patience, etc. Paul explains that "it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20), and that in order that "the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal bodies" (II Cor. 4:10,11).

If this be the case (as Scripture seems to indicate), then objectively we have all the heaven we are ever going to get, right now, presently, on earth, in Jesus Christ! And subjectively, now is the time, here on earth is the place, for the development of the appreciation of His life, since physical death would seem to be the terminus of such development and growth. Now is the day of salvation through sanctification in Christ Jesus (I Cor. 6:2; II Thess. 2:13).

Yet, we must consider not only the objectivity of the life of Jesus Christ and the subjectivity of the appreciation of such, but also the objectivity of the realm in which that life is experienced and the subjectivity of the experience of that life within that realm. The present subjective experience of Christ's life is within an objective realm that is antithetically hostile and alien to the experience and expression of His life ­ the environment of the "world" ­ thus causing subjective difficulty and hindrance to the awareness and enjoyment of His life. Such is the Christian life on earth! The future subjective experience of Christ's life will be within an objective realm that is completely conducive to the experience and expression of God's life. It will be in a "new heaven and a new earth" (II Peter 3:13), wherein the total environment and atmosphere will also be the presence of God. Thus it is that "heaven" as spiritual condition or state and "heaven" as realm or place or location will converge or merge into one ­ the presence of God, objectively and subjectively. Even then there is no pantheism implied for the Creator/creature distinction will always be maintained. Though we partake of heavenly realities, the presence of God, we do not become God, nor do we assume any of His essential, exclusive and non-transferrable attributes. We do not become eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.

Therefore, we are not saying that all there is to heaven, objectively and subjectively, is what we have and experience on earth right now! It is not a matter of "what you see is what you get." I would not want an eternity of what I am currently capable of seeing! That would not be "heavenly" to me. Yet, at the same time, I do have all heavenly blessings in Christ Jesus, right now (Eph. 1:3).

Heaven is the presence of God. Jesus Christ is the presence of God. Heaven is eternal life. Jesus Christ is eternal life. To have the presence of Jesus Christ in us be the Spirit, God in us, is to have the presence of heaven in us, to participate in the kingdom of God, and to allow God to act in accord with His heavenly character, both now and in the future.

The Creator-God so designed the creature-man so as to require the presence of the Creator-God within the creature man in order for the creature-man to be the creature-man that the Creator-God intended the creature-man to be. Man is not man as God intended apart from seeking for and participating in heaven, seeking for and participating in the presence of God.

It has been said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I disagree! The road to hell is paved with apathy and escapism. Apathy which says, "I don't care; I don't give a damn." Escapism which seeks to avoid and evade the true functional intent for humanity. The divine intent for the human creature is to allow God, the heavenly Father (made available to mankind in Jesus Christ, His Son, and by the outpouring of His Spirit) to function by His heavenly presence in us. That is the gospel, the "good news" about "heaven."

Heaven: the presence of God in Jesus Christ. Now and then!

As the song writer testified, "Heaven came down and glory filled my soul."

Christocentric worship

My own words I do not use the hex word church I see no biblical relationship what so ever in it's use... narrowway enjoys the author truth fullness on the content of this discussion..

Thanks to christiocentric theology website, great article.


For many years voices have been decrying the decline of a proper sense of worship in the Western churches. Several decades ago A.W. Tozer wrote,

"The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men."1
"We have lost our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence."2
"I wonder if there was ever a time when true spiritual worship was at a lower ebb. To great sections of the Church the art of worship has been lost entirely, and in its place has come that strange and foreign thing called the 'program.' This word has been borrowed from the stage and applied with sad wisdom to the type of public service which now passes for worship among us."3
"The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all."4
"If Bible Christianity is to survive the present world upheaval, we shall need to recapture the spirit of worship."5

More recently Leslie Flynn has lamented that,

"In many churches the art of worship has markedly declined. The so-called hour of worship has become a time when mind and emotions are anesthetized into neutral. Out of habit, church obligation, affection for the minister, peer pressure, family togetherness, patriotism, or community expectation, people sink into their usual pews." 6

In similar manner John MacArthur Jr. explains that,

"The Church has slipped into a philosophy of 'Christian humanism' that is flawed with self-love, self-esteem, self-fulfillment, and self-glory. There appears to be scant concern about worshipping our glorious God on His terms. So-called worship seems little more than some liturgy (high or low) equated with stained-glass windows, organ music, or emotion-filled songs and prayers. If the bulletin didn't say 'Worship Service,' maybe we wouldn't know what we were supposed to be doing."7

The suggested solutions to this perceived decline of worship range from encouraging a renaissance of ritual and liturgy to the repudiation of all structure. Perhaps the most prevalent emphasis is that which advocates "contemporary worship" styles which supposedly relate better to our modern culture. These are usually patterned after the worship styles of the "charismatic movement" which has flourished since the 1960s in the United States and around the world.

These public worship assemblies feature an energetic, enthusiastic and exciting spontaneity which is alleged to be the free-working of the Holy Spirit, but can also be an emotional and subjective experientialism.

The attendees at these "services of worship" are often physically involved by the raising and clapping of hands, as well as touching and hugging one another. The music features modern instrumentation of guitars, drums, keyboards, and large electronic amplifiers. Such a "renewal of worship" is used as a drawing-card to involve more and more people in the church.


We must question whether the variety of styles and forms employed in public assemblies actually constitutes Christian worship. Has there not been too much emphasis on the activities and their psychological effects upon people, rather than upon the reality that is the essence of Christianity?

Our starting point must be to define worship within a Biblical theology that is Christocentric.


Words for "Worship"


The Hebrew language of the old covenant literature had several words that indicated worship. The most prevalent Hebrew word was shachah which referred to "bowing down before an object of honor." When Ezra read the Law after their return to Jerusalem, the Israelites "bowed low and worshiped the Lord" (Neh. 8:6). The Psalmist implores, "Come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker" (Ps. 95:6). A second Hebrew word was abad which indicated "service or work for God." Moses told the Israelites, "You shall fear only the Lord you God; and you shall worship Him" (Deut. 6:13). The Psalmist encourages rulers to "Worship the Lord with reverence, and rejoice with trembling" (Ps. 2:11). A third Hebrew word, segid, is used in Daniel to indicate "showing respect" or "doing homage" to the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar had constructed (cf. Dan. 3:5-18).

In the new covenant literature of the New Testament, several Greek words are employed to refer to worship. The Greek words gonu and gonupeteo refer to "bending the knee." From these we get the English word "genuflect." Paul refers to his willingness to "bow my knees before the Father" (Eph. 3:14), and the recognition that "every knee should bow at the name of Jesus" (Phil. 2:10). The Greek word sebo is derived from sebas, the word for "fear" or "reverence." The Jews tried to convince Gallio that Paul was persuading men "to worship God contrary to the law" (Acts 18:13). The composite Greek word eusebeo, combing eu, meaning "good," and sebo, is used by Paul when he refers to the idolatrous "unknown god" which the Athenians "worshipped in ignorance" (Acts 17:23). Proskuneo, which combines pros, "toward," and kuneo, "to kiss," is used by Jesus during His temptation when He responded to the devil, saying, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only" (Matt. 4:10). Jesus also used this word when He told the Samaritan woman, "God is Spirit; and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). This is the predominant Greek word used for "worship" in the New Testament. Another word, latreuo, is derived from the word latris, referring to "a servant." To thus "serve in worship" is the word Paul uses of our "spiritual service of worship" (Rom. 12:1) and for "worship in the Spirit of God" (Phil. 3:3). The Greek word leitourgeo is the word from which we get the English word "liturgy." It is a combination of the word laos, "people," and ergeo, "to work." It refers to the work of the people in priestly service or temple worship. The Christians of Antioch were "ministering to the Lord" (Acts 13:2) in worship, and Christian giving can be a "ministry of service" (II Cor. 9:12). One other word, therapeuo, meaning "to heal," is translated as "worship" in the King James Version of Acts 17:25, where Paul indicated that God is "not worshipped" by human hands.

Our English word "worship" is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon term, weorthscipe, meaning "worth-ship," which gradually evolved into the word "worship." It refers to the attribution or expression of worth or value toward any object.

Word-studies, of themselves, do not bring us to a clear definition of worship. Such can only be derived from a comprehensive understanding of the New Testament and the new covenant awareness of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.

Beginning then with the inadequate general and religious concepts of worship, we will proceed to differentiate "Christian worship" from all other concepts of worship.


General Concept of "Worship"


In its most general sense worship has reference to regarding an object with honor, respect, devotion, reverence, veneration, adoration or admiration. An object regarded as having value, worth, honor or esteem is accorded recognition or worship.

Many have indicated that human beings in general have a fundamental need, drive or desire to worship, since they were created with a spiritual life-function. Unlike the animal kingdom which does not have spiritual function, all men have this basic need and human desire to worship, and therefore all men are worshipping creatures. Anthropologists and sociologists seem to confirm this phenomenon.

The object of this spiritual desire to worship is often sought in something beyond ourselves. Men have often projected spiritual worth and value to metaphysical, mystical and magical ideals and techniques, such as New Age "energy sources." Throughout history men have found more tangible objects to worship such as the sun, moon, stars, mountains, waters, storms, etc. In order to objectify the object of their veneration, men have often constructed tangible images or idols to represent what they worship. Paul explains the spiritual factor of idolatry as having "respect for demons" (Acts 17:22) and being "sharers in demons" (I Cor. 10:20).

Mankind can also revert to worshipping himself and his own abilities. Humanism ascribes ultimate worth to man and his intelligence, creativity and productivity. Writing to the Romans, Paul referred to those who "worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom. 1:25). In so doing, man often becomes a slave to his own passions for power, possessions, relationships, sexuality, etc.

Anything that man becomes mentally and emotionally preoccupied with can become an object accorded with honor, value and worth. The materialistic orientation of modern society affords innumerable objects for worship. Real estate, automobiles, clothes, stocks, bonds and countless other objects are regarded as having great worth for the ascription of "worth-ship" in worship. Other people, such as athletes, musicians, and politicians (even pastors), are often idolized in hero worship. Associations with other people in such social groupings as fraternities, sororities, and special interest societies (even denominations and local churches) are often considered as having great worth that becomes "worth-ship."

All of these above mentioned objects of man's attention and desire have been formulated into collective religious expressions of worship.


Religious Concepts of "Worship"


By its etymological definition, religion involves being "bound" or "tied" in devotion to a particular object. In the process of such, religious worship, as differentiated from Christian worship, tends to develop certain traits and patterns. Whereas worship in general is object-centered, religious forms of worship are usually anthropocentric, focusing on the human worshipper's actions, experiences and benefits from such worship, as well as event-centered, focusing on the time, place and procedures involved in such worship.

Religious worship operates on the fallacious premise of human activated and generated activity. It fails to recognize that man is always spiritually derivative, deriving activity either from God or Satan. Such religious attempts at worship inevitably involve the imperative of human effort. Worship is defined as what we do. In order to worship we gather together and we sing, we pray, we listen, we give, and we serve God with our talents and skills. We "do our thing" in the parameters of prescribed programs and productions. It is "do-it-yourself" worship!

The reasoning behind such in the worship of Christian religion is usually that Jesus told His followers to do this, and gave us an example of such for us to follow. Even when couched in the explanation that "we do it because of Christ, in response to what He has done for us," it does not escape the reasoning that "we do it." Popular evangelical writers blatantly state that "real worship is something you do."8 "Because of what God has done for us, we are to be occupied with offering up acceptable spiritual sacrifices of worship."9 "Worship involves aligning ourselves with God's will for us."10

In contrast to such we shall note that Christian worship is not what we do anymore than anything in the Christian life is what we do! The explanation of worship as the self-generated activities of man is a failure to understand God's grace. "God is not served (KJV-worshipped) with human hands, as though He needed anything" (Acts. 17:25).

Religious worship also focuses on man's emotions and experiences. How does the worship experience make us feel? Do we feel good? Do we feel better for having thus engaged ourselves in worship? When worship is defined by how we feel, it is relegated to a mood-altering psychological experience. Our physical senses may be stirred by the architecture of the building, the beauty of the stained-glass windows, the sounds of the organ, the voices of a well-trained choir, the oratorical ability of the speaker, or the comfort of the pews. The lighting in the sanctuary, the musical variations, the sequence of the events, can and are orchestrated to manipulate people psychologically. They may be employed to create a pietistic and sentimental sense of peace and security. They may incite enthusiasm and excitement. They may draw tears of remorse, or impel the participant to a particular course of action. These subjective machinations are nothing more than playing upon the natural personal aspirations, gratifications and reputations of the participants, via "the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life" (I John 2:16).

In response to such experientialism, Ralph Martin writes,

"The centrality of God-in-Christ in Christian worship emphasizes the function of the Spirit's ministry to enable us to emerge from the straitjacket of our emotional introspections and oversensitive preoccupations with our 'feelings' at any given time."11

R.J. Neuhaus also indicates that,

"the celebration that we call worship has less to do with the satisfaction of the pursuit of happiness than with the abandonment of the pursuit of happiness."12

In addition to emphasizing what we do and how we feel, religious worship endeavors tend to fixate on how we think and the extent to which we think that we have the object of our worship all figured out. By the repetition of creeds and the recitation of "statements of faith" people's ideological belief-systems are conformed and confirmed. Worship is often regarded as a time to gain knowledge and understanding through the teaching of doctrine and theology. This is particularly true among fundamentalistic religious groups wherein epistemological constructs of thought become the objects of their worship, amounting to ideological idolatry.

Religious worship is also anthropocentric in its emphasis on the benefit that accrues to the worshipper by the activity of worship. By worshipping it is alleged that we get strength, patience, "energy," and blessings. "Blessing comes from God in response to worship,"13 writes an evangelical author. What then did Paul mean when he wrote that "God has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3)? The objective of Christian worship is not to "get blessed," but "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph. 1:6).

Alongside of being man-centered, religious worship is also event-centered. It is limited by particular times, places and procedures, outside of which the worship experience is not considered legitimate or allowed to take place.

In his book entitled Worship, A.P. Gibbs declares that,

"Much of the so-called 'public worship' in Christendom, is merely a form of Christianized Judaism, and, in some cases, thinly veiled paganism. In Judaism there was a separate priestly caste who alone could conduct the worship of Israel. In Christendom a man-made priesthood called 'the clergy,' is essential to its worship, in spite of the plain teaching of the New Testament that all believers are priests. These priests of Judaism wore a distinctive dress, as also does the clergy. Judaism emphasized an earthly sanctuary, or building. In like manner, Christendom makes much of its consecrated 'places of worship,' and miscalls the edifice 'a church,' and refers to it as 'the house of God.' Jewish priests had an altar on which were offered sacrifices to God. Christendom has erected 'altars' in these ornate buildings, before which candles burn and incense is offered, and, in many cases, on which a wafer is kept, which is looked upon as the body of Christ! It is hardly necessary to say that all this copying of Judaism is absolutely foreign to the teaching of the New Testament.
Thus Christendom has initiated its own specially educated and ordained priesthood, whose presence is indispensable to 'administer the sacraments.' These men, robed in gorgeous vestments, from within a roped off 'sanctuary,' stand before a bloodless 'altar,' with a background of burning candles, crosses and smoking incense, and 'conduct the worship' for the laity. With the use of an elaborate prepared ritual, with stereotyped prayers, and responses from the audience, the whole service proceeds smoothly and with mechanical precision. It is a marvel of human invention and ingenuity, with an undoubted appeal to the esthetic; but a tragic and sorry substitute for the spiritual worship which our Lord declared that His Father sought from His redeemed children."14

The Judaic religion had carefully prescribed Sabbath regulations for worshipping from sun-down on Friday evening to sun-down on Saturday evening. Voluminous legalistic accretions were added throughout the centuries. The Jews of the old covenant, for the most part, missed the intent of God in pre-figuring the privilege of God's people resting in the enjoyment of what God has done and is doing. Jesus Christ came as the substance of which the weekly Judaic Sabbaths were but a symbolic shadow. Aware that He was "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8), Jesus violated the religious regulations of the Sabbath, for He knew that the "Sabbath rest" (Heb. 4:9) wherein God's people could cease from their labors of striving to please God by their prescribed worship procedures, was to be found in the dynamic of His own life through Christocentric worship.

Yet the worship of Christian religion continues to emphasize the "Christian Sabbath" on Sunday, complete with legalistic expectations galore. The event of worship is considered to take place during the "Sunday Morning Worship Hour."

Whereas Judaism regarded the place of worship to be the "earthly sanctuary" (Heb. 9:1) of the tabernacle and the temple, Christian religion regards the "church building" as "God's House." This despite the fact that Stephen indicated that "the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands" (Acts 7:48), and Paul told the Athenians the same thing (Acts 17:24). Those who "go to worship" at "the house of worship" each week are limiting the worship that God intends in His people.

As religion is often based on law which prescribes precise procedures and patterns for life and worship, religious worship is often shackled by these forms, techniques, rituals, and "regulations of worship" (Heb. 9:1). Worship is perceived as a "program" or a "production," wherein different "styles" and "art forms" of "pomp and circumstance" are employed. The spontaneity of the Spirit of God is quenched. One religious author declared that "acceptable worship does not happen spontaneously. Preparation is essential."15 The author once overheard a pastor refer to his manipulation of "the worship service" using the oxymoron of "planned spontaneity."

Judson Cornwall writes,

"Whenever the method of worship becomes more important than the Person of worship, we have already prostituted our worship. There are entire congregations who worship praise and praise worship but who have not yet learned to praise and worship God in Jesus Christ."16

God is not pleased with such religious worship. Through Isaiah God says to the Israelites concerning their religious worship,

"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me? I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams. I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs, or goats. When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My courts? Bring your worthless offerings no longer; their incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and Sabbath, the calling of assemblies ­ I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts. They have become a burden to Me. I am weary of bearing them. So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you. Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen." (Isaiah 1:11-15)
"This people draws near with their words, and honors Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote." (Isaiah 29:13)

This latter verse from Isaiah is quoted by Jesus as an indictment upon the scribes and Pharisees of first-century Judaism (Matt. 15:8,9).

The prophet Amos also states God's perspective on their religious worship.

"I hate, I reject your festivals. Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs. I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." (Amos 5:21-24)

Writing to the new Christians in Galatia who were in danger of reverting back to religious worship, Paul exclaims, "You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." (Gal. 4:10). To the Colossians who were being bombarded by religionists, Paul declares, "Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day ­ things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col. 2:16,17).

Religious worship is not only inadequate, it is an abomination to God. The "good news" of the gospel is that God has provided in His Son, Jesus Christ, an entirely new basis of life and worship.


Christian Concept of "Worship"


Christian worship is radically different from all the forms of religious worship. That is because Christianity is not a religion, but the dynamic spiritual reality of God in action through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Judaism stresses God's Law and His activity which is to be gratefully praised. Islam emphasizes submission to the will of Allah. Hinduism advocates the good works of "karma" to please the gods. Buddhism promotes self-control for inner-peace to transcend the cycle of rebirth into "nirvana." Jesus did not come to bring another religious worship pattern. Despite his theological deficiencies, the early Christian thinker, Marcion, is reported to have said that "the new thing that Jesus Christ brought into the world was Himself." Christianity is Christ. Everything that is Christian is His Being in action, the dynamic reality of the ontological presence and activity of the risen Lord Jesus. Ralph Martin correctly states that "Christian worship is established on the premise that the risen Lord is present with His believing Church."17

Christian worship is not man-centered or event-centered, as is all religious worship, but it is Christ-centered. Such Christocentric worship was established by Jesus Christ in His redemptive work which reconciled God and man in order to restore the spiritual presence and dynamic of God to man.

"Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, entering through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve (or worship - latreuein) the living God?" (Heb. 9:11-14)

As the "High Priest" (Heb. 2:17) and "the one mediator between God and man" (I Tim. 2:5), Jesus led us into reconciled relationship with God with the privilege of His divine presence in us. Jesus continues to be the priest that leads us in our worship of God. "No man comes to the Father," either in reconciliation or in worship, "but through Him" (John 14:6). "Through Christ we are enabled to come to God."18 John MacArthur Jr. notes that "the objective of redemption is making worshippers."19 The primary purpose of redemption is not how to get a man out of hell and into heaven, but to restore man to God's intent by the imputation and impartation of Christ's life in the receptive believer in order to live and worship to the glory of God.

In Christian worship the Christian participates in what Christ continues to do as the living Lord in our lives. We participate in His life, His ministry, His intercession and worship. C.E.B. Cranfield states that "the efficacy of our worship as our action lies in His action on our behalf, His continual intercession."20 Christian worship is prompted, evoked, activated and generated by Jesus Christ. This is the basis on which J.B. Torrance asserts that "Jesus Christ is the one true worshipper,"21 for everything that is "Christian" is the activity of Jesus Christ. "Worship is controlled by its object who is also subject,"22 writes G.W. Bromiley. Jesus is both the subject and the object of Christian worship, which is thus completely Christocentric.

"Jesus and worship are inseparable," writes Judson Cornwall; "He is the route to worship, the reason for worship, and the reality of worship."23 J.B. Torrance explains that "worship...is evoked by Christ, through the Spirit, in such a way that He is the One who acts in us and through us, so that our worship becomes real worship in Spirit and in Truth. It is not we who represent Christ, but Christ who re-presents Himself through the Spirit."24 "By Him (Jesus Christ) is our Amen (our worship) to the glory of God through us" (II Cor. 1:20).

"The main point," states the writer to the Hebrews, is that "we have a High Priest" who is "a minister in the sanctuary, in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man" (Heb. 8:1,2). He identifies Jesus as the leitourgos, the "leader of worship," in the Holy Place of God's presence. The Christocentric reality of Christian worship could be expressed no clearer.

True Christian worship is the consistent response and activity of Jesus Christ within us toward God the Father, in order to glorify God by the expression of the "worth-ship" of His character in the behavior of man. Jesus is, and has always been, the only expressor of God. He is the expressive "Word" which "became flesh" (John 1:1,14). He is the expressive "image of God" (Col. 1:15; II Cor. 4:4), whereby the invisible character of God is made visible in human behavior.
As with everything in the Christian life, worship is enacted only by the grace of God. "Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). The dynamic activity of God expressing the reality of God's character is only realized as expressed by Jesus Christ. Christian worship is always activated by God's grace. He is the dynamic of His own demands.

"We can expect God to provide everything necessary to make worship possible. We children of God must ever be dependent upon God, for we have no resources of our own. We are as impoverished in worship times as a baby unable to provide its own bottle at feeding time. God, the object of our worship, also becomes the inspiration of that worship. He has imparted His own Spirit into our hearts to energize that worship. All that is due Him comes from Him. His glorious Person evokes admiration for and honor of Him, as He imparts His nature into me."25
"The Father is the originator of worship. The formation of life is not the responsibility of the children. God is not a divorced parent who has visiting rights only on Sundays." 26

God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit prompt and activate Christian worship to express the "worth-ship" of His divine character, and are also the recipients of the glory of the expression of that all-glorious character. Christian worship can only be understood in this Trinitarian expression. All attempts to divide the triune God into varying economic roles is fraught with misinterpretation. The three Persons as one God function as the essence of Christian worship.

To the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus said, "God is Spirit; worship Him in Spirit and in Truth" (John 4:24). Despite the absence of a definite article, Jesus was not saying that "God is a spirit," one among many nebulous noumena. Rather, He was indicating that God is the essence by which all things "spiritual" are to be measured and determined. We are to worship God in (or by) the activity of His Spirit operative within our spirit. Every Christian has the Spirit of Christ dwelling in and operative in their spirit, or they are not Christians. "If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9), and "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16). We worship as Christians by the energizing activity of the Spirit of Christ operative within us. Christ is the spiritual Reality of God, the Truth (John 14:6), and the only One capable of expressing the reality of God's character through us. Christian worship transpires only as the Spirit of Christ who is the Reality of God expresses the character of God in the behavior of man to the glory of God. Those who do not understand the basis of Christian worship will inevitably interpret Jesus' words of worshipping "in Spirit and in Truth" with religious concepts of worshipping with emotion and mind, with feeling and doctrine, with experientialism and epistemology, with "enthusiasm and orthodoxy,"27 with "sincerity and Scriptural consistency"28, with "whole-hearted genuineness and true concepts."29 They have missed the spiritual reality of Jesus Christ in Christian worship.

To the Philippians Paul explained that "we (Christians) are the true (the spiritual reality that God intended, in contrast to the physical pre-figuring of such among the Jews) circumcision (in that our sins have been cut off by the work of Jesus Christ, rather than just male foreskins), who worship in (or by) the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). Christians worship by means of the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), expressing the "worth-ship" of God's character in our behavior, thereby counteracting "the confidence in the flesh," comprised of those selfish and sinful behavioral patterns expressed apart from Christ.

"Present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, your spiritual service of worship" (Rom. 12:1), urges Paul. Make yourselves available by faith to God's activity, in order to participate in a "spiritual service of worship." The intense practicality of such worship is evidenced by the following context in Romans 12-16. Christian worship is everything Christians do individually and corporately as Christ functions as their life (Col. 3:4). John Calvin noted that "the only lawful worship of God is the observation of righteousness, holiness and purity."30

What is the one condition of human responsibility for Christian worship? Faith is always the singular response of man in the Christian life, as the Reformation theme of sola fide (faith alone) indicated. Faith is much more than belief or mental assent. It is our receptivity of God's activity, which activity will always express the "worth-ship" of His character. God cannot act out of character. He does what He does, because He is who He is. In Christian worship we allow for our availability to His ability to express Himself unto His own glory. The message of Grace in the Christian gospel reveals that Christianity is not what we do, but what He does for us, in us, as us, and through us.

Christ's activity in the Christian is not prescribed with stereotyped patterns of behavior. Jesus Christ wants to be uniquely Himself in and through us. Whereas the old covenant had prescribed forms of worship as a pictorial pre-figuring to point to Jesus Christ, the new covenant is the Person of Jesus Christ functioning as the Reality of our lives, expressed in whatever form He directs and projects. The external rituals are replaced with internal spiritual Reality. Worship is not prescribed by the written words of the Law, but by the indwelling Spirit of Christ who serves as "the law written in our hearts" (Heb. 8:10; 10:16).

The free expression of a divinely indwelt human being allowing for the expression God's character in his behavior is the glorious purpose for which we were created (Isa. 43:7). That is why Jesus declared that "you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Such truth is not the propositional truth of doctrinal orthodoxy, but is the Personal Truth of the Reality of Jesus Christ who said, "I am the Truth" (John 14:6). Jesus went on to explain that the Truth of which He spoke was Himself, for He said, "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed" (John 8:36). By the presence of the Reality of the Life of Jesus Christ we are liberated from the prescribed forms and patterned procedures of religious worship styles. We are free to allow for the spontaneous, unique and novel expression of the "worth-ship" of God's character in our behavior all the time, everywhere, and in whatever manner He desires to manifest Himself. We are not limited to specific times, places and procedures in our Christian worship.

Geographical location is not a relevant issue in Christian worship, as Jesus made clear to the Samaritan woman who was questioning the proper location (John 4:20-24). Christians are both individually and collectively the "house of the Lord" (Eph. 2:19; I Peter 2:5) and the "temple" wherein God's presence is active (I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; II Cor. 6:16).

The time of our worship is not limited to a specific hour in a "service of worship." Worship is a lifestyle. Ernst Kasemann refers to "worship in everyday life,"31 for it is the moment-by-moment privilege of "practicing His presence," as Brother Lawrence phrased it,32 and allowing the glorious life of Jesus Christ to be expressed in our everyday behavior to the glory of God.

This is not to imply that there is not a place for the collective expression of Christian worship in the Body of Christ, the Church. We are "not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together" (Heb. 10:25). We have a functional responsibility in the "sharing of the Body of Christ" (I Cor. 10:16). J.B. Torrance correctly notes that "worship is the very life and essence of the Church,"33 but we must be careful to remember that the Church is not an institutional organization that exists to plan and promote public assemblies, the traditions and rituals of which are often regarded as constituting or producing worship. The Church is the collective expression of individual Christians who are allowing the life of Jesus Christ to function in their inter-relationships. John MacArthur Jr. correctly explains that "a Sunday service is to be only a corporate overflow of a worshipping life."34

Every facet of the Christian life is to be an expression of worship. Every Scriptural reference to the life and function of Jesus Christ in our lives can be viewed as being inclusive of the activity of Christ in our Christian worship. A few examples will suffice to document such:

"The mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, ...is Christ in you, the hope (confident expectation) of glory (of manifesting the "worth-ship" of the all-glorious character of God, unto God's glory). (Col. 1:26,27).
"It is no longer I who live (or worship), but Christ lives (and worships) in me: and the life that I live (and the worship I engage in) I do so by faith (our receptivity of His activity) in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20).
"For me to live (and worship) is Christ" (Phil. 1:21)
"His divine power has granted us everything pertaining to life and godliness (expressing the "worth-ship" of the character of God), through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence (to express such glorious and excellent character within His creation). (II Peter 1:4).
"Apart from Me you can do nothing (including the bearing of the fruit of His character in worship). (John 15:5).
"God is at work in you both to will and to work (and to worship) for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).
"Not that we are adequate to consider anything (including worship) as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is of God (derived out of God through Christ). (II Cor. 3:5).
"May the God of peace sanctify you (set you apart to function as He intended in the expression of His Holy character)... Faithful is He who calls you and He will bring it to pass (expressing the "worth-ship" of His character in Jesus Christ). (I Thess. 5:23).

These and many other Scriptures attest to Christian worship being the total expression of the life of Jesus Christ in our behavior. May we cease to generalize worship as object-centered human preoccupation with objects "which by nature are no gods" (Gal. 4:8). May we cease to engage in the man-centered worship of religion which falsely supposes that worship is what we do, how we feel and we think, the extent to which we are committed, and evaluated by the benefits and "blessings" we receive. May we cease to limit worship to the prescribed times, places and procedures of religious tradition. Christian worship is Christ-centered, being established by His redemptive and restorative work and continuously generated and activated by the risen Lord Jesus within the Christian.

Christian worship is Christocentric. Jesus worships the Father by the Spirit through the Christian.

Prayer?? what does it mean and look like..

For true Christians, prayer [Gk: "proseuche"] is "communion with God". Through prayer we actually experience relationship with God. learn how to listen!!!! The quality of our prayer life then determines the quality of our relationship with God. Prayer is talking with God. Prayer is listening to God. Prayer is enjoying the presence of God. It can take many forms - for example: worship, confession, thanksgiving, praise, petition (asking for things), waiting (silent, listening and sensing of God) and warfare (command). If we are baptised in the Spirit we can pray with the spirit, in languages unknown to us but not to God. (1 Corinthians 14:2,14).

Prayer is not simply saying words. It is not repeating formulas. God is looking for heartfelt relationship. We are told by Jesus not to make meaningless repetitions of words when we pray. (Mathew 6:7). Tongues may be meaningless to our understanding, but it is not to God. In a future lesson we will give more attention to this subject.

There is a lot of prayer that never reaches God. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself" (Luke 18:11). "One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer shall be an abomination." (Proverbs 28:9). It is outside the scope of this lesson to talk about prayers offered to false gods or to the devil. Also, we will not look at religious prayers or traditional prayers that can be uttered without heart. We will be considering prayers that come from one who has repented of his sins to the best of his knowledge, and who walks by faith.

At narrowway we feel prayer is not adding lists of wants, but coming to place to hear no matter how long it takes. His presence, most prayers are entitlement based, our lives are so busy with junk we can hardly hear, that's why we got what we have today, confusion much of the  time.  On a personal basis, take the time, get rich in his presence, not just on power ball or a flotilla of how to books, because we don't know how to ask and hear and change our lives according to his will. It's not hard..... the truth never is.

 You've heard me say things are not good, true, many have lost so much, it's just the beginning. Spiritual state is a near mess at best, sorry for those out there seeking, the Lord does not do so, people do... the real presence of real a living God is not confused  nor are his people deeply so, that's part of the post modern political correct religion, deeply divided because few have taken the time to really see what the truth is,allot of things gotten adjusted to fit their divides, we're not divided here, our desire is to speak it as it is, and do what we're led to do without the arm twisting of compromise.


Jesus did not have many followers it was scary as it was powerful, raising dead, healing the sick and so much more was not what man would respond to as the story goes the dead man desired to come back to tell his family, I will warn them, even so "Jesus says they will not believe", faith is not based on human capacity, that is the way it is it's not show  to get people come the very act of belief is not in man's power to do so unless faith is awakened in him, to do so By God's Spirit whom awakens a man to hear his gospel and enters into him.

 If we would only hear him. Prayer is taking time to  hear through the lists away and learn how to hear. 1 Corinth 3 NEB translation. KJ3 I enjoy...

FS

How we;re learning,?

As an ekklesia or simple Assembly, but more so as each one of us. Just imagine all of us one in the faith! Bound by his love and for one another no matter where we are.

Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Matthew 6:24-25 ”No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

It's a real a serious verse, the obsession in our land is to get rich quick, God is taking it away. Trusting will require lessons. Money is not bad it;s the love of it that goes over the deep end of things.



Things to avoid...
# Christians have been trained to be, and are, spectators.?
Most Christian activity now is listening to sermons. People are lectured to, rather than trained by doing.
#Experts say we forget about 90% of what we hear -- but almost none of what we do. We learn by doing. Jesus said, "Follow me," not "Listen to me." "In our little way we have to.".

 #In case you were wondering this was the reason for us quoting a group of articles which  illustrated a relational function  verses a philosophy,  two very different ways, one is speculative the other is seeing another way based on faith and results in real a life  in which love is more than starring.

The papers on Tyndale revealed the condition related to the distorted terms used to sustain power. It also developed into a spectator based practice. The history  is all their defining the drift away from the Hopwood's articles on what a relational body was like before  the changes took place.
As an ekklesia- congregation, we;re seeking to see it return in it;s fullness it once had. Thanks to those joining us in so doing, know of your faith and fervent desire to meet with us,thanks to the group we heard of another town and fervent in the faith and steadfast what a joy.

Love to you I will soon be around to visit. I will be in Vermont again praise God, pray for the many in communities suffering hard times, it;s real time to take stock in how and what we are and living in a way that means more than hording junk , lets lay up for ourselves treasures found in the Spirit of love and fervor, and truthfulness. I am rich to hear your joy for us, thanks,,and enjoy meeting them all..I hope soon.There is no greater joy than to hear of such simplicity and honesty, therein is the power spoken of 1 Corinth 4;20 thanks.



Your free at narrowway a place where we see each of us as vital and part of connection  in a link of life in which the body is one with no divides and anywhere we go I desire to meet the guys up country barn is fine I am interested in building people not wood or hay says 1 Corth 3 what counts is what is eternal. Take care..

Enjoy... love to all.

Taking the journey in faith

 "Alone at your Jordan. v. 14. Jordan is the type of separation where there is no fellowship with anyone else, and where no one can take the responsibility for you. ... If you want to know whether God is the God you have faith to believe Him to be, then go through your Jordan alone.... Determine to trust in God and do not look for Elijah any more."


 Personally it;s been amazing to see and do so,without this there is little knowing other than following, dependant on the one who will move mtns verses human philosophy, one real the other assumed, If my life were to pass into eternity I would go in great joy with hope and surety.For it is impossible to please God without faith, ever wonder what faith looks like out side a laundry list of things to do they are not the same. One is personal the other is fictitious, redundant, formal, and often lifeless.We meet with those who are close it;s share time and joy celebration, unlike the questions  ordained in  doubts, but one of life. Isiah 43 -1-3, Isiah 43;12-14.

 The scriptures are used most of the time 2 Corinth 3 speaks of another way, Israel did  the same thing, when he came  they were unable to understand or intentionally rejected him, the life giving power of the Spirit was missing, why they killed him, they were nationally responsible as we all are, but they who had so many manifestations would become powerless, perhaps like today, 1 Corinth 4;20.Use the Strong's etc interesting.

We have 3,000 sermons, one convert, they had one sermon and 3,000 converts, they were spirit led through and through, we can hardly gets ourselves to agree on his presence, they gathered informally any where they could, and shared the wonders of God, we gather  to hear and bring almost nothing. They knew, we wonder,  Jordon is a dear place to go take the time it;s another life totally. 

Thanks NW

Rightly dividing the word

Be diligent (4704) (spoudazo form spoude = haste) conveys the idea hastening to do something with the implication of associated energy or with intense effort and motivation. It suggest zealous concentration and diligent effort. 

The word is used in passage to rightly divide the word, when we spoke of the articles on words added or taken,we did some research, another words to see things in full light.

* Each of the articles reflects thoughts shared we respect them.The Tyndale account and the Kjv  discussions took place over the present state of events which shaped our  modern practices to see if they line up with the word? We decided to let people see the questions and discussions for the sake of knowing the differences so they can make a wise choice.
(blessings)

I love those that love me; and they that seek me early shall find me.

and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure,

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you.

Finders keepers!



NW

Spiriutal warfare!

Discussion of interest on a sent article,

 

TRhis is something we take serious, I like to thank

Spiritual warfare.

Trust and learn faith.

The result is the church-assembly divided again. Just as tragic, millions of terribly hurt people, believers as well as unbelievers, go without help or go to counselors who may be atheists or Christians inexperienced in the demonic realm. The Scripture-versus-experience issue is unfortunate, unbiblical, and illogical. Never in Scripture are the two held to be mutually exclusive. They are always seen to be two sides of the same coin. God’s written revelation is the Bible.

That written revelation is not given in an abstract theological form, however. It is given in historical form as God makes Himself known to His people and to the world in the context of human experience. A knowledge of God divorced from the experience of God led to the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other chapters in the colonization of the heathen world by organized Christianity too shameful for words.

We all recognize this in our evangelism. We commonly say we want to help people find Christ as “their personal Savior.” We know informing them about God and Jesus is not enough—they must experience Him personally. God must first be experienced before He is understood.

We all recognize this to some degree in our development of theology. We realize that God’s truth is not discovered primarily by the human brain but by the human heart as revealed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10). Thus if we had to make the choice of being taught about God by a brilliant, highly trained, but “unsaved” theologian, or a semi-literate but Spirit-filled believer, we would probably choose the believer.

While he may not be able to define God theologically, he can lead us to God experientially. Why do we evangelicals so distrust experience with the spirit world? (Why do we develop theologies about this dimension of reality about which we are personally ignorant except through biblical exegesis?  ((thanks true))). amen..

  The misrepresentation of those  failures is stunning and damaging, this is why we took it to task to answer those questions rather than brush them aside or run back to never knowing  the difference in action or word 1. by experiencing. 2 and factual truths .

 Can a theology of Satan and demons that is both true and useful for ministry really be developed by theologians studying their Hebrew and Greek Bibles while sitting in their air-conditioned offices apart from at least some personal experience? If the theologians in question did not bring limiting preconceptions about what demons can and cannot do to their study, they could possibly, exclusively through the Scriptures, develop guidelines to practical demonology that could then be tested by experience. Based on the results of that experience, they would then need to readjust their demonology to fit the contemporary assault of evil supernaturalism the body is facing today.??? ((I agree that's the issue...))

The primary  reason...!

The basic tenets of our historic Christian theology probably did not change. In fact, they only became firmer. What did happen, however, is that we were forced to return to Scripture for help, again and again. We began to examine anew certain dimensions of our unreflective theology when it did not prove congruent with our own valid experience with God, with people, and, in many cases, with Satan and demons. Therefore, correct biblical interpretation is that interpretation which is most consistent with experience. Theology which is contradicted by experience, or at the least brought into question, is theology that needs to be reexamined. To declare that theology must be maintained even if it is challenged by on-going experience is legalism, pharisaism, dogmatism, and evidence of subtle arrogance. 

This perhaps the most deadly stigma found in  evangelical  denominations at the present, for those outside the  which have formed an ekklesia type thinking escaping the drift into institutionalism  is far more free in the expressing  truth seeking,obtaining benefits found in his people. Stott, Barclay, expressed their concerns for the rigid lifeless formalism controlling away the relational connection. See Stott  in his book 1-2 Thessalonians, Barclay on Corinthians, both  described  reluctance to go back to relational personage in which all were bringing their fruit to share.

In the wake of the eighteenth-century rise of rationalism known as the Enlightenment, Western theology lost an intuitive, historic understanding of the spirit world))). As in all other areas where the church has ignored or resisted dimensions of biblical reality, the process of rediscovery usually comes through experience. This experience calls theology into question at that point. The theological status quo will always resist the reformers, however.

That's always the case, it’s easy to not get in the cross hairs of devil by staying hid  and lip services the faith, or remain removed from taking  task to heart,.

The status-quo theologians and Bible teachers, if they hold a high view of Scripture, will go back to Scripture, not to openly challenge their own presuppositions in light of the experience of their brethren, but to defend their presuppositions against their misguided brothers.

The  conservatives,reformers or others, if they also hold to a high view of Scripture, will also return to Scripture. If they are honest, they will return not to prove themselves right and their status-quo brethren wrong, but to better understand what their experience is telling them. 

Jesus  did what he said and went to places the scribes dare not go other than their final sentence through rejection to hell, as they were of their father the devil. Jesus dealt with other side, as we should pray and reach out seeing we are the temple of God ,  we are given his power...prayer 1 Corinth 4; 23-24,

When they do, they will either call into question their experience, their understanding of Scripture, or both.
Usually the latter will occur. If their experiences are valid they will find that they are supported by Scripture much more than they had first imagined. They will also find that Scripture will cause them to restate their experience and not go to extremes. They will recognize that they too, as all men, are susceptible to both deception and error.

The result should be a newly formulated theology more consistent with both Scripture and experience. This is what is occurring today with the bodies “new” experience with demons. The demons have always been with us. But, as conservative evangelical theologians and Bible teachers would do well to think deeply....Hopwood warns that conservatism was the first step downward in leaving relationship based faith heading into external organization driven by gnosis he mentions,evanglici, see his book, that does not mean scripture it refers to their propensity to add and deny things by explaining them away and changing the Oder God designed? 

Our theology of the spirit world must fit the reality of contemporary human anguish. Particularly for us in the West, where materialism is the religion of many, and where occultism, Satanism, and the New Age movement flourish, a status-quo practical demonology will not do. With sexual abuse and even Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) of children no longer a secret, but almost a national epidemic, status-quo counseling will do no longer.

Been telling us for years, as we see the day of the final conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil approaching, an outpouring of demonic evil such as the church and the world has not known since the early centuries of the Christian era will occur.

 If we are entering that period, and most biblical scholars suspect we are, then we should expect Satan to come into the open and through lying, deceitful spirits assault mankind in general and the body in particular. Is that what we are witnessing today? Only time will tell.

 One thing is absolutely certain, however:

Demons flow where abuse flows. Demons flow where Satanism, Satanic occult practices, and the New Age movement flourish. Demons enter the bodies lives of abused children, especially those who have experienced SRA, and of practicing New Agers. The church in the West will find it difficult to bring salvation and healing to the survivors of such evil if it maintains its present status-quo,unworkable theology of experiential demonology.

What happens to their world view when they become Christians? It becomes confused. That confusion has at least a dual source: First, Western missionaries, though looked upon as experts about things spiritual, are primarily ignorant of the activity of the spirits. Second, their national church leaders were trained in their ministry by missionaries ignorant of the spirit world. I was one such missionary. I know  as well here, it’s missing...

The Holy Spirit vs. Spirits of Slavery and Fear

Verse 15 is one of the great verses of Scripture setting the “Spirit of adoption,” the Holy Spirit, over against the opposing spirit,“the spirit of slavery leading to fear.” The Spirit of God, even when He is the Spirit of conviction of sin, is always the Spirit who lets us know we belong to God and His kingdom, Paul is implying. He builds up. He encourages. He blesses. He enlightens. He makes Jesus more and more precious to us. He empowers us to the defeat of the flesh, the world, and Satan and his demons. It is he and healone who cries within us, “Abba! Father!”It is the other spirit who tells us lies.

The writer of Hebrews says that the other spirit, Satan, is the one who binds us in fear (Heb.2:15). We have been delivered from him, however, so we are not to fear him or his. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of liberty, of adoption. He lets us know that we belong to God. He “bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (v. 16). The other spirits either whisper denials of our true sonship or say we are unacceptable to God, even though we may be His sons. Thus Jesus says the other spirit is “a liar, the father of lies, whenever he speaks a lie he speaks from his own nature” (John 8:44). When he speaks lies to us, we are to shut him up as Jesus did (Matt. 4:10; 16:23). We are to resist him with the words of truth (Eph. 6:17; James 4:7–8). I hold to this in my mind, I waste little time with debates, the war is on sir, the other stuff is man talking.

Narrowway 2011 

When things get or got changed!

There is no unanimity, among Christians, as to what the buildings we use for worship should be called. This is a very touchy point with some Christians and some of us have been criticised for failing to use the terms ‘Church’ or ‘Chapel’. Displeasure has also been shown when we have said ‘Congregation’ instead of ‘Church’. However, the strongest objections has been reserved for using the term ‘Meeting House’, when others thought we should have used ‘Chapel’, or when we have said ‘Meeting’, when others have thought we should have used the word ‘Service’; for that we have even been censured, even ostracised, by some. Such are the personal feelings raised by this issue and we can expect more criticism and more cold shoulder for publishing this article. Consequently the origins, and use, of these terms require an honest examination.
Many have noticed, and commented on, the stark simplicity of Quaker Meeting Houses. No tower, steeple, or bell housing, outside and no statues, stained glass windows, ornaments, or elaborate furnishings, inside. However, it isn’t just Quakers who have had plain buildings, others have pursued this principle, without reference to the Quaker movement and preceding that movement. In fact, English Puritans referred, scornfully, to the Anglican ‘churches’ as ‘steeple houses’. And, we should all be aware that for over the two thousand years of Christian testimony many Christians have met for worship in simple, even humble, surroundings and glorified the Lord in doing so.
In a Scottish coastal village, near where I was brought up, there was an old, and simple, building with the legend carved on the lintel ‘BAPTIST MEETING HOUSE’ where a Baptist Congregation met; in another town there was a much newer, but equally unostentatious, ‘MEETING ROOM’ where a Brethren Assembly met. Both of these places of worship carried the same message. These were the buildings where a gathering of the Lord’s people met, for the worship of God, edification from His Word and preaching the gospel. However, worship is spiritual and ‘the place of worship’ is spiritual and entered in faith. These buildings were not the congregation, they were where the gathering met. Whether the assembly was present, or not, the building was nothing more than a man made structure. However, the buildings have been replaced and the legends have been changed to ‘Baptist Church’ and ‘Evangelical Church’, thus the doctrinal distinctiveness of the Baptist Meeting House and the Brethren Meeting Room may have been lost.
In the title page of the 7th. edition of Hart’s Hymns, printed in 1770, is the following;- “---; And at the Meetings in Jewin Street, and Bartholomew Close.” NOTE. These believers called the places where they met MEETINGS, not churches nor chapels.
However, these terms go back into antiquity. Tertullian writes, of the harassment and persecution, in the 2nd. century;- “We are daily beset by foes, we are daily betrayed; we are oftentimes surprised in our meetings and congregations.” It would seem that the meeting is regarded as the occasion and the congregation is regarded as the people, who Tertullian normally refers to as ‘brethren’, hence the double emphasis.
William Tyndale correctly translated ekklesai as congregation and for this his Bibles were burnt by the Papists and, more to the point, so was he. Tyndale’s Martyrdom was not just due him having translated the Bible into English, but because he didn’t use the terminology of the established State Religion, especially his use of the word Congregation instead of the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical word Church. For evidence of this see the writings of Bishop Tonstall and Sir Thomas More.
The heading to 1st. Corinthians chapter 11, in the Geneva Translation of Holy Scripture, is;- “He blameth the Corinthians for that in their holy assemblies men doe pray having their heads covered and women bareheaded and because their meetings tended to evil.” Notice the terminology. The Reformers, who translated and annotated the Geneva Translation of Scripture, refer to assemblies and meetings, in a chapter heading; in the Geneva Bible Notes we read “Church signfyeth Congregation”; this was what King James and the High Church Bishops vigorously objected to; resulting in the strict rules given to their translators and the legal banning of the Geneva Translation of Holy Scripture. Those who criticise us for using the terms already mentioned are also criticising the Reformers; well, it is most probable that the meticulous John Calvin and the fearless John Knox are, on this issue, right.
A few comparative readings can show the difference between the Translations of Holy Scripture opposed by the State Religions and those Bibles sponsored by the State, and Supra-State, ‘Churches’, on this issue.
Acts.8;1. Using original spelling, but modern alphabet, as printed in the 1841 English Hexapla. The comparison is clear.
TYNDALE 1534 “And at that tyme there was a great persecution agaynst the congregacion which was at Ierusalem”
CRAMNER 1539 “And at that tyme ther was a great persecution agaynst the congregacion which was at Ierusalem”
GENEVA 1557 “and at that tyme, there was a great persecution agaynst the Congregation which was at Ierusalem”, Reformer’s Bible.
RHEIMS 1582, “And the same day there vvas made a great persecution in the church vvhich vvas at Hierusalem.” Roman Catholic Bible.
KJV 1611, (original) “And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Hierusalem,” Church of England Bible.
Extract from King James Instructions to Translators, actually drawn up by the High Church Bishop, Bancroft;- “Rule 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.” So, this Rule, plus the fact that all the ‘translators were Anglicans, with a preponderance of Anglo-Catholics who predominated the proceedings, is why, without any doubt whatever, the word ‘church’ got into the King James Bible and, hence, into common English usage. See On Bible Translations, Page 4b Extracts.
King James 1/6 knew exactly what he was doing. He was an intelligent man, well educated in both Classics and Theology by a Presbyterian tutor, and he knew that he could never be Supreme Head of The Church of England, indeed there could never be a Church of England, if ekklesia was translated correctly as Congregation or Assembly. Indeed he knew that no National Religion, or a religion aspiring to National or Supra-National status, could allow ekklesia to be translated correctly. King James Stuart knew, like Henry Tudor and all the Holy Roman emperors, that the only way to maintain a National, or Supra-National, Church was to, at all costs, keep up the use of the Catholic Ecclesiastical term ‘Church’. This was exactly why William Tyndale’s Translation of the Bible had to burned and why Tyndale was, himself, burnt at the stake at the earliest opportunity. This is exactly why King James, and his Anglo-Catholic Bishops, banned the printing of the Geneva Translation of the Holy Bible and then restricted its use.
Extracts from Bagster’s 1841 English Hexapla, Historical Account, Page 159
“ --- but still it is to be observed that the early English printed versions (of the Bible) used Congregation as the representative of Ekklesia [Here anglicised] and thus the introduction of the word Church into printed Bibles and New Testament had been an innovation. --- such words should be so rendered as to give the most intelligible meaning in the language of the version.” That is, the word Church is an introduced term which downgrades the meaning, and significance, of the Greek word ecclesia and could only have come to be used in our English language Bibles at the insistence of an Anglo-Catholic pressure group, i.e. King James, Archbishop Bancroft and his acolytes.
Note. ekklesia and ecclesia is the same word in two languages and we should normally only use the English translation, assembly, congregation or gathering, in our writing and conversation. The use of manufactured words, transliterated from another language, or using Greek, Latin or Aramaic words, is neither necessary nor desirable, in fact it is pretentious and an evidence of pseudo learning. In other words we do not call our congregations EKKLESIA, etc; and is not appropriate to use the term CHURCH.
EKKLESIA Always means assembly, congregation, gathering, or ‘called out ones’. ‘Church’ is a technical, invented, term. So, where does it come from?
The Anglo/Saxon/Germanic word Church, Kirk, Kirke, Kirkja, Kirsche, etc. can in fact be traced to the Greek word Kuriakos, from which it is a transliteration (a representative word in the, more or less, corresponding characters of a different language) or Anglicisation. Now the word Kuriakos does actually occur in the New Testament where it is properly rendered The Lord’s. as in “The Lord’s Supper.” 1Cor.11;20 and “The Lord’s Day.” Rev.1;10. The real meaning of Kuriakos is Belonging to the Lord, it never means a gathering or assembly. The word ‘Church’, or ‘Kirk’, is a transliteration of Kuriakos but, in many English Bibles, it is used as a technical rendering of Ekklesia which actually means Called out ones. However, ekklesia is rendered Assembly in the KJV in Acts 19;32,39,41, where it is not used in an Ecclesiastical setting and could not be given an Ecclesiastical distinction; elsewhere, by the unspiritual king’s edict, Ekklesia is incorrectly rendered ‘Church’ in the king’s bible and has been transmitted to many English language Bibles since and has found its way into Christian terminology. (See Monograph 2 “The Congregation, The House of God.”)
Many of our brethren use the term ‘church’ without implying any error. But, in doing so, they do sound an uncertain note, consequently, there will always be some who misunderstand what is being said.
The following references are historic and can easily be checked.
“ On the 1st. of March 1709, the Popish mob burnt his (Thomas Bradbury’s) meeting house, ---.” From Bunhill Memorials, Gospel Standard May 2002, p140
nA unknown correspondent, writing in 1790 of the death of Robert Robinson, English Baptist preacher, historian and hymn-writer, states;- “he preached twice, in the morning at the new meeting house and at the old meeting house in the afternoon.”
See introduction to Robertson’s History of Baptism. That is a historical reference which tells us what the buildings were called in 1790.
A Baptist friend writes from USA;- “The Welshmen that came in settled onto a small plot of Land. ---. The present meeting house was built in 1746, the original was made of logs and built when they first arrived (in 1704/5). It still stands to this day by the grace of God.” (It actually has some firearms damage from the Civil War.)
A number of English historic Non-Conformist places of worship still maintain the old names, Meeting House or Meeting Place. There is the well known Carr’s Lane Meeting House, in Birmingham, and the famous Independent (now United Reformed) place of worship, in Norwich, which is still called the Old Meeting House. Also, the (old) Particular Baptist Meeting House, St.Ives, Cambs., erected in 1839 enlarged 1862 & 1871, is still in use. This is evidence that at the end of the nineteenth century Particular Baptists were still using the term Meeting House, not Chapel. See Photo file Old Meeting House, Page 9a
Meeting Houses. In New Testament times the gatherings of believers met in domestic dwellings and names were never given to the places where they met; these dwellings were, according to Scripture, the houses of the brethren. The School (Room) of Tyranus does not seem to have been a meeting place for the assembly. During the development of the Christian Faith the places where the Lord’s People, outside of Rome Catholicism, met became known as Meeting Places or Meeting Houses. This became common among British Non-Conformists before and after the Reformation, as was seen among Baptists and Congregationalists and there were many places of worship so designated. In England the Jewin Street Meeting, where Joseph Hart was pastor, was well known; there were Independent Congregations at Currier’s Hall, Pinner’s Hall, Collier’s Rents, Bridewell Lane and Petticoat Lane. None of these buildings were known as churches or chapels and the gospel prospered.
Now it is significant that Dr. John Gill ministered in a congregation which did not give a name to the building where it met. In, circa,1729 the gathering was known as ‘The Church of Christ at Horsely-Down’, in 1757 the gathering re-located and was known as ‘The Church in Carter Lane, Southwark’. Notice, NOT CHAPEL and NO NAME. The emphasis is on the church and then only the location. See 1757 Carter Lane Declaration of Faith Page 3e.
Now there will be Christians who will disagree with us, and bitterly oppose these comments, even ostracising us for this writing article. So we ask such brethren to tell us, From Scripture Alone, the name of the ‘church’ at Philippi, or the name of ‘chapel’ at Collosse, or, indeed, of any other New Testament Congregation. O, and while we are at it, how, and when, did Apollos get his name on to the ‘denominational ministers list’?
During the ‘Dark Ages’, while the Romanists used ornate ‘churches’, Believers, who were called, among other names, Ana-Baptist and Cata-Baptist but they called themselves Brethren, met mostly in private houses and sometimes in simple halls. This was not due to the very real persecution that existed at that time it was because of the fact that these believers didn’t have any need for man made temples. But, where these Brethren were able to take over disused Catholic ‘Churches’ they may have done so disposing of evidences of ecclesiastical impedimenta. At a much later date, during the Reformation, John Knox allowed the destruction of religious structural paraphernalia saying, “The best way to stop rooks returning is to pull down the rookeries.”
“ Among Dissenters you see a veneration for structures, a modified belief in the sacredness of places, which is all idolatry; for to believe in the sacredness of anything but of God and His own Word, is to idolise, whether it is to believe in the sacredness of the men, the priests, or in the sacredness of the bricks and mortar, or the fine linen, or what not, which you may use in the worship of God. I see this coming up everywhere
- a belief in ceremony, a resting in ceremony, a veneration for altars, fonts and churches
- a veneration so profound that we must not venture upon a remark, or straight way of sinners we are chief. --- We want John Knox back again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox.” C.H.Spurgeon, 5/6/1864, Sermon on Mark.16;15-16. So then, if the renowned Mr. Spurgeon was severely criticised for raising this issue, we can expect the same, or even worse, treatment, and from unexpected sources.
Not once in the New Testament is the term ekklesia used to denote a building, it always means the people. Therefore, the building does not matter, it is not part of New Testament teaching, it is unnecessary and an encumbrance. If the word ekklesia were correctly translated, as ‘congregation’ or ‘assembly’, its misuse would not make sense. Indeed this emphasises the fact that, in the King James Bible, this word was deliberately rendered ‘church’ for religious and political purposes. That is, to destroy the teaching that the ekklesia is the gathering and not the national religious institution with its plethora of consecrated, made sacred, religious buildings.
Indeed all the available evidence suggests that the brethren in the first century met in private houses. Even published Roman Catholic teaching admits to this fact, “Churches in the sense of church buildings did not exist ---. When they met ---, they met in a room in a private house.” The Christian Heritage, p17, Desmond Forristal. So, why don’t we all just take Scripture as given to us. Accepting the New Testament pattern would solve many of the problems associated with Chapels and Denominations.
We should note how Paul addresses his letters;- “To the congregation of God which is in Corinth, to [those] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints (Note, ‘By Divine Calling’) with all that in every place call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours.” 1Cor.1;1. Again Desmond Forristal reminds us of the truth, better than some Nonconformists would do. “The very word ‘church’ itself may mislead us. When the early Christians used the word ‘church’ (ecclesia), they meant the community of believers;---.” The Christian Heritage, p17. So this principle should be well known in every single gathering of true saints, where the truth is taught, and by every single real believer, who studies the Word of God, in all ages and in all places.
There is a also a consequential dilution of the teaching of what constitutes the Assembly or Congregation. All too often we hear the word congregation used to imply the number of persons present at the ‘religious service’. This is wrong. Samuel John Stone’s hymn, ‘The church’s one foundation’, gives us more than a clue; verse two begins ‘Elect from every nation’. The Assembly, the Congregation, is those who are called by God out of this world; it is the Redeemed and none other.
Dr. John Gill writes, “The papists, indeed, call an edifice built for religious worship a church; and so some protestants; I might add, some dissenting protestants too; who call going to a place of public worship, going to church; though with great impropriety.” A Body Of Practical Divinity, Book 2, Chap2, First point.
It is quite distressing to hear people, who should know better, say “I must go to church on ---day to clean it.” or “to make lunch for the visitors to our church.” How can one ‘go to’ something of which one is already part? This is rather like a thumb nail saying to a finger nail “I will go to the body tomorrow.” If the truth of the Assembly, the Congregation, which is the Glorious Body of Christ, were better understood we would say, “I will go, God willing, to the/our meeting house etc. to do such and such.”
We often hear, otherwise well adjusted, brethren pray “for us as a church and people.” This is equally wrong, the church is the people, it is, correctly, the congregation or assembly. If the word had been rightly translated this would be plain.
Another, and vital, aspect of this truth is the constitution of the House of God, and we all need to apprised of the issues involved. This truth dispels the error of attaching merit to a material building. “I will come into thy house. The house of God is the congregation of the saints, wherever they gather in assembly to worship God. When we come into the assembly of God’s saints, we come into the house and temple of the living God.” Don Fortener.
The term ‘Chapel’ seems to have been introduced to non-conformists in the 19th. century and became popular in to the 20th. century, to be overtaken by the 20th. century term ‘Evangelical Church’. However, where non-domestic accommodation is utilised, the name Meeting House is most appropriate, or Meeting Room where a room in a complex is used. Also, it seems, from the Scriptures, that the only Scriptural name for those who meet in the building is Congregation, or Assembly.
However, we should note. The term ‘Chapel’ has no Biblical authority whatever and it did not originate in true primitive Christianity, nor even in Judaism. The single mention of a ‘chapel’ in Amos 7;13, KJV, is an error, the correct translation being ‘sanctuary’. The word is ‘miqdash’ and it is correctly rendered sanctuary 66 times, and also acceptably rendered ‘holy place’ three times, in the KJV. A Jewish, English Language, Bible, gives this verse;- “prophesy not again any more at Beth-el, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a royal house.” Let us face it, the Rabbinical scholars know how to translate Hebrew into English better than we do and the Hebrew word ‘miqdash’ cannot, with any justification, be rendered ‘chapel’.
Actually, the ‘Chapel’ seems to have been invented in the 7th. or 8th. cents. as a place to keep the Chaplet (Middle English & Old French), or Reliquary, which contained ‘relics of saints’, and it then came to be a ‘side room’, usually in a Catholic Cathedral, large Church or private house, for praying to ‘specific saints’, sans relics. This is why the various ‘chapels’ in a cathedral are dedicated to differing saints, the devotees of will go to the appropriate ‘chapel’ to pray to a specific saint. It would, therefore, seem that the term ‘Chapel’ has its origin only in the papal episcopacy.