Ecclesia=Church?

After my last post it was suggested that I add some scriptures and other information so that people know that I'm not just saying things randomly, that I do have some scriptural and other evidence to support what I say. Some of my ideas are just that, my ideas. But they are based on my understanding of words and scriptures. So, here we go.

First, the definition of the word Church from the Websters English dictionary.
1. A building for public Christian worship.
2. Public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
3. The whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4. Any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination: the Methodist Church.
5. That part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.

Now, the definition of the word that “Church” is translated from.
Ecclesia
1. To summon forth
2. Ones called out
3. to call

So, every time that you see the word Church in the Bible it is translated from this word, Ecclesia. But now just look at the difference in definition between these two words. In the Church definition the closest one to reality is number 3, “the whole body of Christian believers” because who are the summoned? They are the believers, the body. “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” 2nd Cor 6:17. But, still the overall English definition of the word Church isn't really close at all to it's original meaning.

Some might say that the word Ecclesia has as it's foundation a meaning of gathering together for a singular purpose because it comes from the the assembly of citizens of the ancient Greek state. This is true, in it's meaning is not simply a summoning or calling, it is a summoning and a calling to a gathering. So using this logic you could say that Church is a gathering of believers and thus it is an accurate use of the word.

However, I don't believe that the call or the summons in the Biblical context is to go to a building on Sunday, the calling and the summons is for us to come to HIM.  "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28 And again “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32 and again  "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44 and again “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” 2nd Cor 6:17. and again “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” It is a recurring theme throughout, a call, a summons to Himself. He is calling, He is drawing, He is knocking. These are just different ways to say he is summoning us. Summoning us where? To a denomination? To a building? To a service on Sunday? No, He is summoning us out of the world system and to Himself. The word Ecclesia is calling us and summoning us to a gathering, but not in the way you might think. He is summoning us to be gathered into himself. When we are truly the Ecclesia of Jesus, the summoned forth, the called out ones of Jesus then the assembling together of the believers happens automatically, it is not something that needs to be scripted or formated, it is just our normal life. Sometimes we might need to scheduled a meeting of believers but that is not the Ecclesia, that is simply a larger assembly, but no more or less important.

As for the statistics I posted on my last post of how statistically the Church has become totally indistinguishable from the rest of the world, that is from real research and real hard statistics gathered from the Barna research group.

The Definition Of Insanity

They say that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. If this is in fact a true definition than we, the followers of Jesus, must be the most insane people on earth. At some point we decided that our gatherings should be scripted, our worship contained and our fellowship formatted. We decided that we would call this gathering the “Church” when the word we translate as Church simply means “the Called out”. The “Called out ones”are of course supposed to gather together, but to call that gathering itself the Church I don't think is accurate or even close to the original meaning. We decided that a building with a name on it is the place that we should gather. We decided that one day a week was the time when we get closer to God. We decided that daily life could and should be separated from Church life, that these are two very distinct things. We decide that to be involved more at “Church” that we need to spend more time at that building.

We have totally failed to see it. We have failed to see what it's really all about. We see that there is a problem so we try to change, we try to redefine Church but at it's essence it is still the mindset of Church as a place or as a gathering of believers. We keep doing the same things over and over again just adding or subtracting things here and there and expecting things to get better.

Right now, statistically there is absolutely no difference in between “the Church” and the rest of the world. In other words, all the bad things, the drugs, the abortions, the alcoholism, the adultery, the violence, the murder, the rape, pornography, all of the bad things in our world happen at the exact same level within the Church as they do outside the Church, statistically there is no difference. Is this really what Jesus described the Church as? Of course people are going to fail, of course people are going to sin BUT we (the believers and followers of Jesus) should NEVER be indistinguishable from the rest of the corrupt world.

So, what can be done? First I think we need to just forget the word Church, throw it out. If it ever had any significance in scripture in the past, it has lost all of it's true meaning and been so misused that most people can not separate that word from the image that it now puts in their mind of a nice little white building with a cross on top. Instead of using the word Church, use “the called ones” or even “The Believers” would be a good description of what the word “Church”really means. The word describes us, the believers and followers of Jesus, not a gathering of believers, but the believers themselves. The called ones are told to “Assemble together” but the assembling itself has no title, it is simply an assembling. There is nothing that says it has to be formatted, scheduled, or held under any name or banner. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that describes anything close to the basic format we now call “Church”. The Bible simply says that we are to assemble together, maybe worship, maybe share a word, maybe pray, maybe encourage. It never says it has to be at a certain building at a certain time. There is nothing that says that it has to be planned out at all.

If we get together with some friends for dinner and we pray for each other and we share with each other what God has done for us, how is this not the assembling of the believers? If we get together with family and have great fellowship and maybe sing some worship songs together, how is this not the assembling of the believers? If you share the word of God with a neighbor how is this not the assembling of the believers? You see we need to break free from the restraints of what we understand as “Church” and realize that It's not someplace you go, or something you do, it is who we are. The assembling of the believers should happen all the time, in many different forms and in many different ways.

This is a tough sell for many. The leadership isn't interested in these changes because it would take much of the power (and money) out of their hands, while the masses are not interested in this change because it would require them to do more than show up for Sunday services. But I believe this is the first step to the next level of Christianity that needs to be taken. We need to stop trying to fix something that just needs to be done away with altogether otherwise we are just trying to do the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The “you can't” society

These days we are told over and over again “You can't”

-You can't make it on your own because of your race. You need a government program to help you

-You can't plan for your own retirement, you are too stupid. You need a government program

-You can't save money, you need the government to do it for you

-You can't take care of your own health-care, the government needs to do it for you.

It's really become a “you can't” society that will soon result in no one believing they can do anything without the government helping them. And then if you try and fail at something, they tell you it's not your fault, it's someone else holding you down, pulling you back and denying you your rights. There is no personal responsibility for success or for failure.

Recently I have been watching the Bob Ross “How to” painting show from the 80's and 90's. I find it absolutely amazing how different he is from society today. People often make fun of him because of his huge hair and funny way of talking (Happy little trees) but he was one of the most positive and optimistic people ever. Can't wasn't even in his vocabulary. He was always saying “You can do it” And he would go on to say that if you try and fail it wasn't because you didn't have the ability, it's because you didn't believe that you could do it. “If you believe that you can do it, you can do it” he would often say. And he would also often go on to say this same mentality could and should be applied to more than just art. Bob Ross might have been a little odd and unusual but he was a unique man, a man with a “you can” attitude in an “you can't” society and I find that very refreshing!

Check out this video, someone made a little song with some Bob Ross footage :)

Christmas...Pagan or Christian??

I'm not writing this article to try to convenience anyone that Jesus was born on December 25^th, I'm simply looking into the origins of the Holiday because I think it's important. God clearly tells us that we should not take pagan practices and try to use them in our worship of the true God. 








So if the December 25^th holiday and all of it's traditions are all based on the Pagan holiday of “Winter Solstice” (the worship of pagan sun gods of different cultures) then we shouldn't try to assimilate it to our Christian beliefs.           

The common argument is that when the emperor Constantine converter to Christianity (or a twisted version of it) that he simply took all of the pagan holidays and re-named them to Christian themes but they maintained all of the same pagan practices. For example they say the Christmas tree is simply an extension of the pagan practice of winter solstice where they would bring greenery inside the house.

So I started looking at the origins of this Holiday to see where the truth lies and what I have found so far as been surprising to me because it has shown how sloppy and lazy so many people have been in accepting the whole “Constantine Christmas” idea because it fits their agenda.

All I had to do is dig a little to find that the December 25 feast celebrating the birth of Christ seems to have existed before 312 AD—long before Constantine and his conversion. The Donatist Christians in North Africa seem to have known it from before that time.

So, where did these early Christians get the dates of December 25^th and in the case of some eastern Christians January 6^th? Did they simply borrow them from Pagan holidays? Far from it.

By the second century there seemed to be a lot of interest show in the birthday of Christ but just as much uncertainty about the actual date. 

But then almost 300 years after Jesus was born, we finally find people observing his birth in mid-winter. But how had they go from showing interest in the date in the second century to celebrating December 25 and January 6 in the third century?

the first mention of a date for Christmas (AD. 200) and the earliest celebrations that we know about (AD. 250–300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions, in fact they were fighting this. During that time the persecuted Christian minority was greatly concerned with distancing itself from the larger, public pagan religious observances, such as sacrifices, games and holidays. This was still true as late as the violent persecutions of the Christians conducted by the Roman emperor Diocletian between 303 and 312 AD. So to suggest that these same people that were dying trying to keep Christianity clean from Pagan influence would then turn around and accept a Pagan holiday as the birthday of Jesus, is quite ridiculous.

In fact the way they reached these dates had nothing whatsoever to do with paganism but it was instead based on a Jewish understanding of how God works. This way of thinking says that creation and redemption must happen on the same date. Rabbi Eliezer states in the Talmod: “In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born; on Passover Isaac was born … and in Nisan they [our ancestors] will be redeemed in time to come.” So the thought process was “we know when the Lord died, and He would have died on the same date He was conceived.” He was placed in the unused (virgin) grave on the same date that he was placed in the virgin womb. So, if they think they know when he was conceived, then the next step is to count 9 months and then you have the date of birth. Nine months from that point puts it at December 25^th.

So, we have Christians in two parts of the world calculating Jesus’ birth on the basis that his death and conception took place on the same date (March 25 or April 6) and coming up with two close but different results (December 25 and January 6).

The Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the Pagan holiday and Jesus’ birth: but they never saw it as being engineered by the Church or pagan influence on the Church, but rather a coincidence or as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.

So, I think it's clear that the origins of Christmas were not born out of paganism as many have stated. But has it been influenced by Paganism over the centuries? Like most things it has been influenced by pagan practices. Many of the European customs like Yule logs, holly, mistletoe and many other elements are from old pagan holidays that were introduced to the Christmas celebration during the middle ages. Many of these customs were lost in America because the puritans of America didn't celebrate Christmas because of all the pagan influence added to it during the middle ages and so Christmas really didn't catch on in America until the 1800's.

Santa:

As for Santa, actually Saint Nicolas is the Saint of children and commerce. Ancient legend tells of Nicolas going to the poor houses and leaving gold coins in the stockings people would hang up near the fireplace to dry. There is actually a Saint Nicolas day on December 6^th. It used to be a festival for children however at one point due to religious persecution it was banned but Christmas on the other hand was allowed to continue and so they ended up merging the two together forever linking Saint Nicolas to Christmas. However, the modern incarnation of Santa was actually invented by the Coca-Cola company near the turn of the last century and he, and the legend surrounding him, bare little resemblance to the original. One could make an argument that the modern day Santa is nothing more than a pagan symbol that doesn't belong in the Christmas celebration. One could also argue that Saint Nicolas is a legitimate early Christian leader that is recognized by both Catholic and many protestant Churches.  

The Christmas tree:

Is the Christmas tree really the modern equivalent of the winter solstice pagan tradition of bringing greenery inside? Actually the history of the Christmas tree is completely separate from the traditions of the winter solstice. Again, it's only lazy and sloppy research that suggests the tie between the two.

In medieval western Europe, mystery or miracle plays taught biblical stories and Christian ideas to a largely illiterate population. The most famous and loved of these plays was The paradise play, which recounted the story of Adam and Eve. This was traditionally performed on the Church steps at around Christmas time.

 

Although the play featured the story of the Creation and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, it closed with the promise of the coming of a Savior. This made it appropriate for the celebration of Christmas. The paradise tree served as the central prop for the paradise play. It represented the two important trees of the Garden of Eden: 

the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Originally, only apples adorned the paradise tree. These symbolized the fall of humanity described in the Adam and Eve story. Perhaps because most other trees were barren and lifeless during December, the actors chose to hang the apples from an evergreen tree rather than from an apple tree. In the fifteenth century round, white communion wafers were added to the paradise tree. These wafers stood for the promise of reconciliation with God made possible through Jesus Christ. Church authorities banned miracle plays in the fifteenth                           

century but since they were so popular among the people, many people performed it privately and would even put a paradise tree on their front pouch out of protest. That is why even today much of Europe places their Christmas tree on the front porch instead of inside like Americans do. Later it was widely called the Christ tree and the red ball shaped ornaments that still represented the apples from the paradise tree were taken down on Christmas day and they would stomp on them and shatter them as a symbol of Christ defeating sin.

So, in closing, if we ask now is Christmas a pagan holiday just clocked in Christianity? Was the pagan holiday just renamed and all of it's pagan practices just relabeled? I think anyone who puts in just a little effort can clearly see that this is not the case. The date was used long before many people think. And the Christmas tree, the iconic symbol of Christmas, is it simply a pagan winter solstice tradition? Absolutely not. We can clearly trace the origins of the Christmas tree back in time and see that it indeed has it's own history apart from the winter solstice traditions. Does Christmas contain pagan traditions? Unfortunately like most things in our world it does. In the middle ages it adopted some of the pagan symbols of the winter solstice which are heavily ingrained in it to this day in Europe and to a lesser extent elsewhere.

While some of the practices might not be good, the intent of the holiday and the day it was placed on is not one of the bad practices. 

I would not fault or criticize someone for not celebrating it on the grounds that it has acquired too much paganism over the centuries.  But when people point their finger at me and tell me that Christmas is a Pagan holiday and that if I celebrate it then I am a pagan sun-god worshiper, I will correct them.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival,a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Colossians 2:16-17

Lost & Found

What is Church? Is is a building, a denomination, an organization, a system, a format, a Pastor, a Priest? What does the word Church even mean? Well, actually the word Church never appears in the New Testament. The word that has been miss-translated as Church is the word “Ecclesia” and this word simply means “the called out ones” or “The summond”. So, who are the called out ones? They are the believers and followers of Jesus “Therefore, Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 6:17.

You know, I've heard people rightly speak of not simply going to church but living the church but I think we often get the meaning of this wrong. Okay, going to church is showing up on Sunday morning and maybe a midweek Bible study. But what is living the church? So many of us will think “well if Sunday morning isn't enough to live the church then that means we need to attend service more often, we need to become involved in Bible study group, we need to get involved in the music ministry”. There is nothing really wrong with these activities but we are still seeing the church as a place, and so we think that if we want to live the church that means we have to become more involved in that place.

You are the Church and I am the Church and we are to meet together to pray for each other and to minister to each other and to have fellowship but the meeting itself is not Church, we are the church. It is important to get the order of things right The Church is not the leadership, the Pastor, the music leader, the deacons, the elders and then the rest of us are just the “audience” This is the mindset that we must escape from. Sure, there are leaders to be listened to and to be followed “And God has placed in the church (among the believers) first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.”1 Corinthians 12:28.

But the whole idea that to get fed spiritually, to be prayed for, to have fellowship, to worship God depends on going to a certain place at a certain time is absurd and something that we need to break away from if we really want to live the church. 

If you and a few friends are gathered around the table sharing a dinner and fellowshiping how is that not the assembling of the Believers? If you and your neighbour sit down and discuss the word of God how is that not the assembling of the believers? The assembling of the believers doesn't have to be at a certain building at a certain time under a certain banner. It is where you are because you are the believers. And it is whenever you assemble with other believers. Sometimes larger groups of believers will assemble together, but that doesn't make that the church, that doesn’t make that gathering any more important or significant than the assembling of a few. Jesus said “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Matthew 18:20.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26 we see God's plan for the assembling of the believers “When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church (the believers) may be built up.” You see, maybe when we meet with our Christian friends God will give us a word for one or all of the others, maybe a revelation. Maybe as we fellowship we sing a song to the Lord. You see, this is our life, the life of the believers. Everything we do needs to be for and to God. Church is a lifestyle to be lived, not a place to go. The life lived by the believer is church because the true believer is always assembling with other believers in many different forms and in many different places.

Try this, the next time you read in the Bible every time you see the word Church replace it with the word believers, you just might get a new perspective on the Christian life.

A long time coming!

Andrea and I have been married for almost three years now and while she has talked extensively to my family in America online, she has yet to meet them in person. All that is about to change! Today after months of preparation and weeks of intense gathering of documents and research Andrea finely had her interview at the US Embassy in Manila. She applied for a 6 month tourist visa and the tourist visa is possibly the hardest for a Filipino to attain. It has about an 80% decline rate. So to say we were nervous would be putting it mildly. However, even in our nervous and somewhat worried state we knew that our God was bigger than any obstacle that might come in our way. So after much prayer, not only by us but by my family in America, our entire Filipino family Pastor Felix, Pastor Gerry,Pastor Greg, the time finely came. I am pleased to say that God beat the odds for us and Andrea was approved for her visa!! We plan to leave this September! Thank you Jesus!!!

My thoughts on Andy Griffith

You know, it used to be that whenever something bad happened to a conservative republican, it was the liberal democrats that would cheer these bad things and would say the most vile disgusting things you could imagine. Like when acting legend (and conservative) Charlton Heston announced that he had Alzheimer, the liberals cheered and said that he deserved that horrible illness and even more.And then again when he died they cheered even louder saying it was about time that he died and that they wished it had happened sooner. Again when Rush Limbaugh announced that he had gone def the cheers from the left and the vulgar comments abounded. As a conservative myself I have read, listened to and watched conservative commentators for many years now and I have observed that while the liberals tend to wish death and bodily harm on their political opponents, conservatives tend to not get so personal about it and tend to talk more about defeating their opponents rather than wishing death on them. I mean it would NEVER even occur to me to wish death or harm on anyone, no matter how much I might disagree with them. I know there are freaks out there on all sides that would think that way but I'm talking about the mainstream of both sides, liberals have been vocal in wishing death and harm on people they don't agree with while conservatives are vocal on issues. That is why I was so very disgusted and disheartened when I visited a conservative media site today and saw something that I never thought I'd see, conservatives sinking to the level of the liberals.

For those of you who haven't heard, the TV legend Andy Griffith passed away on July 3rd. In addition to many movies over the years Andy Griffith also had two long running TV shows. Firstly "The Andy Griffith Show" back in the 1960's and then later on "Matlock" in the 1990's. Later in life Andy Griffith supported Obamacare and did some adds in support of it. While I strongly disagreed with him on that issue, I would NEVER say the things these conservatives were saying about him. Literally it was like reading a vile liberal blog. They were saying that they "wished he had died sooner" and that "he got what he deserved for supporting obamacare" and "Good riddance" and all sorts of other disgusting things.

People often ask me why I want to live in the Philippines, well, this is one reason. I feel that if things have gotten so bad there in the States that even the conservatives will lash out in filthy vile tirades wishing death and harm on their opponents, then what is left? No matter what his political views may have been Andy Griffith is an American institution and a legend. Through his TV shows he has brought joy, happiness and many many laughs to millions of people over the last 50 years and he deserves more respect than to just be dismissed because of one political stand he made late in life. As Andy Taylor, the Sheriff of Mayberry he showed us integrity, love, compassion, humor and strength of character. He was a very strong moral role model, qualities that are completely lacking in today's "entertainment". For future generations he also provided a window into the past, a glimpse at a simpler, cleaner and more moral society where humor doesn't equal filthy language or filthy subject matter. So, the next time you want to jump all over someone for going against our political views, ask yourself - has the good that this person done out weigh what I perceive as a mistake that they have made? Has the legacy this person left behind been a good one? I think we can answer with a HUGE yes! to both of these questions. When it comes to Andy Griffith I am just thankful that we have so much of his wonderful work to enjoy even after he is gone.