PREVIOUS PAGE

NEXT PAGE

Now in proposing such a concept (i.e., the concept of house-churches), we fully appreciate the fact that there is, no doubt, much to be said for our present-day concept of "church" - one which encompasses Sunday Schools, youth programs, "singles programs," music programs, the beauty and majesty of "congregational worship," etc. - all of which presuppose the existence of a sizable church building. Indeed, It's difficult to believe that many of these programs and functions - all of which provide very worthwhile services - could be carried on in the absence of a relatively large church building.

THE DANGER IN OUR PRESENT
CONCEPT OF CHURCH

Still, given the course and character of prophecy, this kind of concept of "church" could prove to be our "undoing" as evangelicals - our "Achilles heel." When churches become too identified with their buildings, they then become very easy prey to outside forces which seek to control or manipulate them - after all, buildings of necessity are dependent on huge flows of money on a regular basis, and it's precisely this flow of money that is the "choke point" of the church's independence from the worldly forces which seek to control it: whoever controls this choke point is in a position to control (or manipulate) the church.

We repeat - the weak point in any church's armor is its dependence on money, and nothing places a greater demand on church finances than its building program.

Now, in saying this, it's very important to differentiate between the danger the building itself presents and the danger that the flow of money presents; it's not so much the building per se that's the danger in the first instance, as it is the flow of money which the existence of such a building presupposes. This isn't to suggest, of course, that as the events of prophecy unfold, the dependence of a congregation on its building will not become a danger too; it's only to say that it's money which is - again, in the first instance - the real enemy.

Why? - because (in this life, at least) money is the foundation of ALL Satanic activity: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (1 Tim. 6:10) - and to say, as some do, that there is a difference between the "love of money" and the "possession of money" is to walk a very fine line indeed - a line which is very rarely navigated successfully, despite the belief by most wealthy people that they are doing so -

"For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

THE DILEMMA WE FACE

Thus, a very difficult dilemma (trade-off) presents itself: independence from outside control or manipulation vs. the continued existence of many of those very valuable church programs which seem to be predicated on the existence of a church building. As a result, most congregations - even if they agree with the basic tenets of the Antipas Papers - would naturally be disposed to delay "trading off" the existence of these programs as long as necessary - at least until the danger to the church's independence presents itself in stark and very real terms.

The problem is, however, when that time finally comes, it will probably be too late for the church to extricate itself. We need to remember what prophecy is all about! Prophecy is like a road sign which warns of dangers to come BEFORE they come, because if we wait to do anything about the danger until it finally presents itself, it will be too late to act. It's for this reason that we must ask ourselves, what choice do we really have? - we may look awful silly moving to a church "life-style" which is free from "building-dependency;" but then, no more silly than Noah looked when he began building his ark on dry land.

There are, of course, many selfishly-minded "egalitarians" (those who, for small-minded reasons, are jealous of the fact that there actually is such a thing as a "full-time" worker), who would applaud such a move, thinking that by doing so they would be ridding themselves of such people. But that will never happen - nor should it! The fact is, there is - and always has been - a great need for such workers, and the move away from "building-dependency" on the part of the church would free more money than ever before that could then be dedicated to putting even more "full-time" workers into the "field" - workers to preach the Gospel; pastors to prepare the saints for their added responsibilities which a move away from "building-dependency" would entail; teachers to travel from house to house teaching the word and preparing others to teach the word as well - the possibilities for a real "magnification" of full-time workers is almost limitless - all this to say nothing of the REAL opportunities of giving all the saints a chance to make a meaningful (not a "pretended") contribution to the life of the church community - of bringing all the saints into meaningful function within the church, not just the "chosen few."

THE MATTER OF CHURCH UNITY

Many will object to the concept of the house-church, believing that by dividing the church up into innumerable, independent "home meetings" or "home churches," the unity of the church and its ability to act in coordination with its several parts will be compromised. But those who say such a thing do not really understand what Christ and the church are all about. The church is, as we have already indicated, a community of believers who are "abiding" in the Lord Jesus Christ - and when individual Christians are "abiding" in the Lord, unity within the church (and among its local assemblies) is produced naturally and quite effortlessly as a by-product of that "abiding."

THE UNITY WHICH BINDS MUCH OF TODAY'S
CHURCH: BUREAUCRACY AND HIERARCHY

Sadly, many present-day Christians mistake the kind of unity which bureaucratic and hierarchical control produces as the unity which Christ brings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, however, this is exactly the kind of unity that so many of today's churches depend on - the type which is based on bureaucracy and hierarchy and that emphasizes rank and position - so much so that all too often one's "Godlikeness" is measured by how high up one is in the bureaucracy or hierarchy, and - concomitantly - the "spirituality" of the so-called "little saints" (i.e., the "pew sitters") is measured by the degree to which they "submit" to those human agencies (i.e., church bureaucrats) which have been placed over them.

The thought that all Christians have equal access to Christ through the Spirit is anathema to such bureaucracies and hierarchies - it strikes at the military-like order which bureaucratic unity promotes; but, again, what this kind of unity ultimately produces is automatons and robots, not living, loving brothers and sisters in the Lord.

THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT

Jesus, however, promoted no such hierarchical scheme of things. Jesus taught the exact opposite. He said,

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister (i.e., servant); And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant (i.e., slave): Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto (i.e., to be served), but to minister (i.e., to serve), and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:25-28)

Instead of teaching his disciples to be dependent on an outward hierarchy, Jesus said,

"... ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie [i.e., the same anointing (which is truth and no lie) teaches all of you the same things]." (I John 2:27)

So let's put at rest the thought that the real unity of the church will in any way be damaged by doing away with the hierarchies and bureaucracies upon which much of today's church depends - especially today's mega-churches.

HOUSE-CHURCHES AS A PROTECTION
AGAINST THE COMING HOLOCAUST

But while the house-church does not constitute any threat to the church's real unity, the division of the church into innumerable small "home meetings" will undoubtedly pose a great problem to those powers which in the "latter days" will seek to persecute and destroy it. Why? - because it's one thing to have to deal with a few hundred (even thousand) mega-churches - especially given the technology of today - but it's quite another to have to deal with countless numbers of small "house churches" scattered informally across the country - and this point is easy to substantiate by comparing the experience of the Church in Germany (where the same forms of formal church structure which now predominate in the United States existed when Hitler's persecution against the church broke out) with the Church in China (where informal house-church structures predominated when a similar persecution broke out after the communists gained control in 1949). The Church in Germany collapsed after four short years (1933-1937), while the Church in China has not only survived for over fifty years, but has grown and prospered.

The simple and very obvious fact of the matter is that during periods of persecution, mega-churches and churches which depend on formal organizations (and which are located in buildings which can be easily located and "targeted"), can be quickly brought to heel, the pastors compromised (or removed), and the people thereby brought into submission - or failing that, scattered. Once scattered, the flock becomes easy prey, their testimony quickly lost. Why? - because they've never learned how to "think for themselves," to "touch the Lord" for themselves, to hold meetings by themselves, to minister themselves, etc. They've always had others to do it for them - "paid professionals" to take care of them.

Again, take Germany, for example: shortly after Hitler took power, he moved to get rid of his most vocal opposition in the church by accusing its leaders of theft, sexual sin and treason and publishing the lurid details of these trumped up charges in party newspapers throughout the country. The remaining church officials were shocked and cowed into submission by this, and in September 1933 they met in Berlin to adopt the "Aryan Clause," which barred any pastor with Jewish blood from the pulpit and required the clergy to sign a statement of unconditional support to the Nationalist Socialist State.

Most pastors, of course, recoiled at this, but they felt they had no other choice but to go along. They were "too much out in the open," their church structures too influenced by outsiders, their money too closely controlled by the state to put up much of a fight. To do so would mean ostracism, loss of their pastorate and ultimately loss of their incomes. Even then, a large number of pastors courageously refused to go along, and two weeks later a group of them formed the Pastors' Emergency League to organize opposition against Hitler. By the end of the year (1934), their numbers had grown to six thousand - about a third of all the Protestant churches in Germany - and they had become known as the "Confessing Church." But in the long run, it all didn't matter much. Despite the undoubted courage of these very dedicated men of God, it was all over by 1936. Why? - because the formal nature of the German Church made it too easy for Hitler to subject the church to pressure and persecution. In May of that year (1936) the Gestapo rounded up some eight hundred leaders of the Confessing Church and replaced them with "compromised" pastors of their own choosing - and because the congregations of these churches had never been trained to exist outside the "organized church" (i.e., trained to take care of themselves) they (i.e., the congregations) had no choice but to go along - they were lost without their formal structures and paid professionals. (Please see J.S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches).

The final blow came in the summer of 1938 when the remaining pastors of the Confessing Church were given the choice of signing an oath of allegiance to Hitler or being excommunicated. Those who refused to sign were rounded up and thrown into concentration camps. Hitler knew that if he could replace the leadership, he could control the church. His plan was simple: "The pastors will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes." (Robert Waite, Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God , N.Y.: Basic Books, 1977, p. 16.).

A HOUSE-CHURCH IS NOT A REAL CHURCH?

The second charge which many people will bring against those of us who desire to meet in our homes is that a church meeting in a house does not constitute a real church. They maintain that house-churches cannot possible contain all the ministries of the "real church;" that at best home meetings can function only as prayer groups, Bible studies, etc. - but not as churches; that people who meet as a "house-church" will never reach maturity in the Lord.

However, such thinking is spurious and contrary to church history and the Scriptures. While it's true that the apostles initially went into the synagogues (which were, of course, the relatively large meeting halls of the Jews) to preach the Gospel, it wasn't long before they were kicked out - and where did they go then? - to their homes! And there they stayed for almost 300 years (until 325 BC). Are we to say, then, that these early churches were not real churches? - hardly!

And what about the Scriptures? What do they say? The fact of the matter is, they lend undeniable and very concrete support to the concept of the "house-church:"

Rom. 16:5 - "... also {greet} the church that is in their house. Greet Epaenetus, my beloved, who is the first convert to Christ from Asia."

1 Cor. 16:19 - "The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house."

Col. 4:15 - "Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house."

Philem. 1:2 - "... and to Apphia our sister, and to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house ..."

Acts 2:2 - "And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting."

Acts 2:46 - "And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart ..."

Acts 12:12 - "And when he realized {this,} he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying."

Acts 16:34 - "And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household."

Acts 16:40 - "... And they went out of the prison and entered {the house of} Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they encouraged them and departed."

Acts 20:20 - "... how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house ..."

Moreover, if house-churches do not constitute real churches, then what does one say about the Church in China - a church that has met ONLY in homes for the past sixty years, but one which, nonetheless, is flourishing - having grown to over a hundred million souls. Is this not a real church?

HOUSES vs. BUILDINGS; IS THE ONE MORE
"SPIRITUAL" THAN THE OTHER?

In all of this, one thing should be clearly understood; we are not saying that it is unscriptural to meet in buildings; neither are we saying that to meet in homes is more "spiritual." We are just saying that to meet in homes is NOT unscriptural! nor does it necessarily lead to less of a spiritual result than meeting in large meeting halls. The fact of the matter is, there are good things and bad things attached to both modes of meeting. And we should leave it at that!

While theologians have gone to great lengths to define the church, to model it in a particular fashion, and to impose their concepts on other people (and other cultures), it's interesting to note that the Bible itself is rather vague on the subject of how the church should meet - whether in buildings or in homes, whether formally or informally.

This vagueness stands in stark contrast to the detailed and sometimes even ponderous instructions in the Old Testament as to how the Temple service was to be organized. In comparison to what the Old Testament has to say about the Temple service, the New Testament has very little to say about how the church is to meet.

But it's vague on purpose! Why? - because the church is universal and was structured to adapt itself to different cultures, different times, and different situations. Indeed, it's precisely this adaptability that has been one of the great secrets of the church's success through the ages - it's ability to adapt to differing cultures and differing situations!! There is, therefore, no point in arguing which way is right or which way is wrong. There are pros and cons to each form. The important thing for the church is to follow the Lord and adapt to the circumstances and time in which it is living. The only question before us now, therefore, is if these are the "end times," which form of "church life" should we adopt to best enable us to get through the coming persecution (which will break out against us not only as the result of state persecution, but also as the result of the persecution of the "Apostate Church"). In other words, which form of "church life" should we embrace which will enhance our ability to be witnesses to the unmerited favor and Grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in a situation characterized by severe, unmitigated and unrelenting persecution?

Even if we believe that the message of the Antipas Papers is only half-right, then I believe there is really only one answer - we must adopt the "house-church" model! Again, remember what prophecy is all about! - prophecy is like a road sign which warns of dangers to come BEFORE they come, because if we wait to do anything about the danger until it finally presents itself, it will be too late to act.

THE CHARACTER OF THE "END TIMES" CHURCH

But such fellowships must go far beyond the shallow fellowships that characterizes far too much of Christianity today. It must be the unconditional sharing of our lives with one another as members of the Body of Christ. The church should consist of thousands and thousands of small, informal and structurally independent communities of loving defiance to the Babylonian system of things which now surrounds us. Christian fellowship in the early church meant the total spiritual, emotional and financial availability of one to the other. Through such commitment, the early church was able to defy the Roman world - so also with us today.

If we organize ourselves in such a fashion, then we will be able to carry on the work of the church come what may - and that work is to prophesy against the apostasy which is now organizing itself against the true church of God "clothed in sackcloth" (Revelation 11:3):

"And I will give power to my TWO WITNESSES (Israel and the Church) and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days [3-1/2 years], clothed in sackcloth. 'These are the TWO OLIVE TREES and the TWO LAMPSTANDS standing before God ... " (Rev. 11:3-4 and 7:9-10, 14) [Again, please see pages 96-106 of the Antipas Papers ("The Two Witnesses.") - please see the sidebar article on page 5, "The Two Witnesses."]

THE NEED FOR MUCH PRAYER AND
FELLOWSHIP BEFORE STARTING

For this reason, we encourage you to begin meeting as a house-church only after much prayer and fellowship. Before starting, make sure you understand why you are taking this step. It must not be because you think that a house-church is necessarily a superior form of meeting-life. It isn't! Nor must you entertain the thought that by meeting in your homes you will somehow acquire a more "spiritual aura" around you than those who meet in a traditional church building. You will not! There must be a larger and more compelling reason than these if you are to be successful. You must understand the prophetic imperative which propels you to take such a step.

For that reason we urge you to study the Antipas Papers thoroughly before beginning. Make sure you agree; if you don't, then don't start! Meeting as a house-church is anything but a giddy and carefree "spiritual exercise." It is hard and very difficult and if you are not undergirded by a prophetic imperative, you will soon give up and quit.

Start by studying one of the Gospels - and don't bite off more than you can chew; just a chapter or so per meeting. Let the Word speak for itself. One of the first things you will discover is the Word's profound simplicity. It's not something you need others to "explain" to you. The Bible is not an "enigma wrapped in a mystery" which needs code-breakers (i.e., a priestly caste) to interpret it. The Bible says:

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27)

No one needs to lead the meeting on a permanent basis (although at some point elders will have to be established - more about that later). The principle that should govern the meeting-life of the church is that nothing should be done to enhance one's self. Each person should set aside his own personal desires and ambitions before he or she comes to the meeting. Rather than seeking to enhance one's own self (and one's own gifts and ministry), do everything you can to enhance your brothers and sisters and their gifts and their ministries. In the meeting, you are not trying to express yourself; nor are you waiting passively for others. Your sole aim should be to serve the brethren that are there. Each time a person comes to a meeting, he should come as a servant, not as a lord to "lord it over God's heritage." When we speak, we speak not because we think we have something better to say than all the rest, but because we are humbly answering the prompting of the Spirit. Gently nudge everyone to participate, but don't force the matter - just encourage. As the saints begin to function they will begin to sense how easy (and natural) it is to do so.

This is where we must begin - breaking down the fear of functioning (or even speaking) that has been injected into the saints over the last half century.

Don't let the meetings expand beyond what the space of one living room can accommodate. If you do, the meetings will get too big and there will not be enough opportunity for each to share. If too many people start coming, start a new meeting in another home. You'll find - just as we have done here in Sacramento - that out of this kind of meeting, the fear of speaking and functioning in a church meeting will be dealt with. But, again, don't push the matter; let it develop at its own speed.

PRESENTING YOURSELF A "LIVING" SACRIFICE

The Bible says:

"... the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12)

The first thing that we need to recognize if we are going to come to any appreciation of how the church functions is to grasp the fact that as Christians we have a corporate identity which supersedes our individual identity; that as Christians, we are first of all members of the church, and only secondarily are we individual Christians. This is why Paul says:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Rom. 12:1)

Present your bodies to what? - to the church!

Note that Paul talks about our bodies - presenting our bodies. Why? - because there is a real-life practicality to what Paul is saying. If he had said, "I beseech you brethren to present your souls a living sacrifice ...", then it might be possible for someone to conceive the idea that what Paul is talking about here is largely a "mental" or "spiritual" procedure which we can accomplish through prayer from the comfort of our homes. But Paul talks about bodies - flesh and blood bodies - which of necessity requires physical contact. To be sure our souls and spirits are also involved, but as Christians, wherever our bodies are, there will our souls and spirits be too.

No doubt, the church has a spiritual dimension, but it has a physical dimension also. Paul does not want us to miss this point, because it's here - in the physical realm - that the "rubber meets the road" and we are forced to convert our dreams into reality, the same dreams which are common to men and women everywhere; of having long-lasting, loving relationships with other people - relationships which for most people remain vapors which all too often disappear when we reach out to grasp them.

It's easy for us to dream airily about developing relationships with other Christians - but so long as we avoid dealing with them on a physical level, that's all these relationships will remain - dreams! But the church is not a dream. It's real and alive, and if we are going to involve ourselves with the church, then we must do so on a "flesh and blood" basis. And isn't that what we really want? - genuine, long-lasting, loving relationships with other people. Yes, of course it is!

PUTTING THE NEEDS OF OTHERS FIRST

Paul continues:

"For as we have many (individual) members in one body ...

"So we, being many (individual members), are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. (Rom 12:3-5)

What's Paul saying here? - he's saying essentially that what each and everyone of us needs to do if we are to get involved with the church on a real-life basis - is to get our eyes off ourselves as individuals and to begin taking the needs of others (i.e., the body) into account. It's not that God doesn't prize us as individuals - of course He does (so much so that if you had been the only person on earth, He still would have died for you) - it's just that in the past we have been so used to focusing our thoughts and attention on our own personal needs that we find it difficult now to focus on the needs of others.

Focusing on the needs of others, rather than on our own! - this is, of course, what being a servant is all about - and it's on this basis that we have been called into the church! Unless we are willing to see ourselves as servants, we will never be able to "make it" in the church-life. This is what Paul meant when he wrote:

"Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (i.e., thought it not inappropriate to think of himself as equal to the Father):

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phil. 2:4-8)

This is the beginning of the "body-life" and developing living, loving relationships with others: to put away pride and any thought of being "better" than others.

LET LOVE HAVE ITS OWN WAY

Paul continues:

"And be not conformed to this world (where people are used to putting their needs ahead of the needs of others - where self is exalted and everyone else is debased); but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

"For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

"Let love be without dissimulation (i.e., without dishonesty and hypocrisy). Abhor that which is evil (because evil - which in the end is predicated on selfishness - destroys relationships]; cleave to that which is good.

"Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love ..." (Rom. 12:2-3; 9-10)

Let our love for the brothers and sisters be without hypocrisy and dishonesty; in other words, let it be genuine - let it be extended to others without any thought that we will necessarily receive something in return. Jesus said,

"... Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

"For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

"And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? (Matt. 5:44-47)

Does he have reference here only to our enemies. No! Of course not. He's making a point - that we need to love others expecting nothing in return. This is the love that Christ gave to us ["But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us ..." (Rom. 5:8) ], and this is the love we need to give to others if we want to build the church. The Bible says,

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (love), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (love), I am nothing.

"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity (love), it profiteth me nothing.

"Charity (love) suffereth long, and is kind; charity (love) envieth not; charity (love) vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

"Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

"Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

"Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

"Charity (love) never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. (I Cor. 13:1-8)

Love isn't concerned for itself; it doesn't envy the "gifts" and "callings" of the other brothers and sisters, it isn't selfish and self-centered; it bears all things and is not concerned when its love from time to time isn't returned by the other brothers and sisters in the church; it believes the best of everyone and it doesn't poke into the affairs of others for the purpose of finding fault; it hopes the best for everybody; it endures the slights and rebuffs of others; it doesn't collapse in the face of pressure and hate! This is the basis of the church-life! This is the basis of the body-life!

Love is the foundation of the work of God. Without love, our works will fail, our gifts will fail, and the church-life will fail. The Bible says:

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity (love), these three; but the greatest of these is charity (love). (I Cor. 13:13)

SPIRITUAL GIFTS ARE MEANT FOR THE
BUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF CHRIST

If we once understand the things which we have been discussing, then we can begin to understand what the "gifts" and "calling" of Christ are all about. When God gives spiritual gifts to the individual saints, it's not for the purpose of having those to whom these gifts are given consume them on themselves - or getting "puffed up" about them - but rather it's for the sake of the body as a whole. We are merely servants distributing to others something which is not ours - it's the Lord's.

Does the waiter at a restaurant get "puffed up" because he serves roast beef rather than stew? Of course not. It's not his roast beef! It's not his stew! They're meant for the customer. He didn't even make them, the chef did. Where is there any room for pride? The chef distributes the food to the waiters in the kitchen as he sees fit. It's the waiter's job to carry the food to the customer, not to eat it himself. The food is not meant for the waiter - it's meant for the patron. If there is any room for pride, it's here: in how the beef and the stew are served. Insofar as the waiter is concerned, it's not what kind of food is being served (that's the responsibility of the chef), but how the food is served.

But there is something more! Where love governs, where is there any room for pride? Where is there any room for envy? There is none! And even if it could possibly be imagined that waiters at a restaurant would have any room to boast about what they are serving, then even here, love would put such boasting to an end. Where love reigns, he who is serving the stew will rejoice for the brother and/or sister who has been given the honor of serving the roast beef, and the brother and/or sister who has been given the roast beef to serve will not conceive the matter as an honor - his or her thoughts are only on the brothers and sisters, to lift them up, to honor them. Pride and envy have no place to work their damage where love rules.

THE GIFTS AND CALLINGS OF THE LORD

So now we come to the matter of "spiritual gifts" and "callings." Paul says:;

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace (which means, an unmerited accommodation) that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy ...

"Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

"Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth (and remember what rule means here - it means to "set an example," not necessarily to "command" - cf Matt. 20:25-28), with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

"Not slothful in business (that is to say, not lazy in the way we administer the gifts we have been given); fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

"Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

"Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. (Rom. 12:6-8, 11-13)

Paul continues:

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

"And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

"And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal (i.e., to profit the whole body).

"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

"To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits;to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

"But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will (i.e., it's the Spirit which makes these gifts effective).

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

"For the body is not one member, but many.

"If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

"And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

"If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

"And if they were all one member, where were the body?

"But now are they many members, yet but one body.

"And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

"Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

"And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

"For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

"That there should be no schism in the body ; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [Note carefully here for future reference that "apostle" is mentioned in this list of gifts in I Corinthians.]

"Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

"Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (I Cor. 12:4-11, 13-30)

What's Paul saying here? - it's not the individual members through whom the "gifts" and "callings" of God are distributed to the body, it's the body that counts. The "gifts" and "callings" of God are not meant to build up those through whom the gifts are administered, they are meant to buildup the body. Where is their any room for envy and pride? - there is none. If you are a member of the body, then these gifts are meant for you. They are not meant for the person who is administering them, they are meant for you. The person who is administering them is merely the servant. You, as a member of the body of Christ, are the person to whom these gifts are really meant.

And there's something more here! What is it that each and everyone of us as Christians really want? Isn't it more of Christ? - surely it is! Isn't Christ our reward? - surely He is! To know Him who passes all understanding, to be in His presence, to fellowship intimately with Him. Surely this is our reward!! And it is precisely this that Christ offers to all those who serve Him. Christ is our reward. What does it matter if we serve stew rather than roast beef if - in the end - we get the same reward. Again, the servant has nothing to do with what he serves (again, that's the chef's responsibility). But he has everything to do with how it is served, whether it be stew or roast beef. If there is a reward to be had - and surely there is - then it is based not on what we serve, but on how we serve it.

ALL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN "GIFTED"

The Bible says,

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man ..." (1 Cor. 12:7)

This means that God has distributed gifts to all the members of the body, and He intends that each member use the gifts to build the body up - i.e., to serve the other members of the church. The Bible continues: "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues ..." - and, again, it's not that any of these members have necessarily done anything to "merit" these gifts, for they (i.e., the "gifts") are given by "grace," - which is to say, "unmerited favor."

Now in using the term, "unmerited favor" the Bible does not mean to imply that for some reason known only to God, He loves some more than others. He does not! Neither does he favor some over others. The Bible says,

"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (James 3:17)

Partiality (loving some above the others) is an abomination to the Father's heart - and remember, to us, He is our Father. Partiality is something which is completely foreign to His "father's heart." There is, as a result, no room for such a thing in the church. Paul writes,

"I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." (1 Tim. 5:21)

God distributes His "gifts" and "calling" based simply on grace and without any partiality (favoritism) - and He does it for the building up of the body, which is to say, the church. Every member is a recipient of God's "gifting," and the gift he receives has nothing to do with favoritism.

THE WORK AND THE CHURCH: A FINE DISTINCTION & NECESSARY

Some people speak of (1) "the work" and (2) "the church," and in doing so they seem to imply that there is a difference between the two; that the work exists separately from the church in some fashion or another. But this simply is not the case. In reality and practice they see no distinction; consequently, in most cases, so-called workers and/or ministry dictates to churches established by the work or ministryand herein lies the rub! Weve looked at this for some time and have had a reappraisal of our initial impressionsin essence, our concerns are the same: The establishment of a special clergy (i.e., the workers) and, consequently, whats left over (i.e., the laity).

Avoiding the clergy-laity system, which has, more than often, stifled the functioning within the Body of Christ, should be assiduously avoided! Here the professional clergy does the lions share of the work and is either in total control (as is the case in Roman Catholicism) or are themselves controlled by a church board (as is the case in most American Protestantism). In both cases there is the ultimate institution of a clergy-laity system.

By merging both work (i.e., workers) and churches (i.e., what the workers produce) one would think that this distinction would be easy to keepnot so. Eventually, one or the other finds themselves in a contest of wills and ultimately wants to control the other. A safe way of handling this (but wholly unscriptural) is to dismiss with such distinctions and simply say that the Body of Christ is one body and thats thatno distinctions between work and churches and in essence that is correct. All workers in the Lord are members of the Body of Christ and all members of a given expression of the Body of Christ, in a given locality, are members of that same Body of Christ.

NICOLAITANS vs. LAODICEANS

There are two extremes that should be noted insofar as the work vs. the churches is concerned: (1) Nicolaitans: the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate Revelations 2:15). This term in Greek literally means to rule over the laity. The Church in Pergamos was rife with this practice and doctrinewhere Satans throne is . . . where Satan dwells. Historically, there is abundant evidence that Mystery Religion of Babylon (according to Alexander Hislops TWO BABYLONS) and its egregious rites and priesthood was transferred from ancient Babylon after Babylon was defeated by the Medo-Persians. Indeed, and ultimately, Rome was favorably impressed with these mysteries and transferred these Babylonian priests to Rome to institute their mysterious rites and practices and hierarchical ways. One needs not a vivid imagination to extrapolate Christendoms entanglements with Mystery Religion Babylon from this fertile soil in Rome.

The imbalance created between these distinctions (i.e., the work and the churches) invariably leads, albeit subtly, to an imposition of a pastoral system which divides the church into doers and listeners. Here, under the Nicolaitan System the practice of hierarchical Christendom takes hold. Christianity is formedi.e., a system is put in place that leaves little or no room for the liberty of the saints and for the ability for the full functioning of the members of the Body of Christ. A paid clergy, a professional caste is secured and is separated from the common folks and pew sitters. The voice of the Son of Man is clear: WHICH THING I HATE!

(2) Laodiceans: the Church in Laodicea here, the precise opposite is in place. The Greek sense of the word Laodicean connotes the laity rule. In ancient times this church sat at the crossroads of commerce and was resplendent in wealth. Church members were undoubtedly quite capable of handling things and administering mattersmany of them were business people. The Lords word to this Church is strikingly familiar to the condition of todays Church in America:

Because you say, I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothingand do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and nakedI counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be reveale3d; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see (Revelation 3:17-18).

Our modern version of the laity rule is the classical democratic model of the American Church wherein members vote and boards hire and fire pastors under various circumstancesalthough in some denominations the practice is ameliorated by denominational structures which move the clergy around from church to church the end result, however, is the very same separation that exists in the previous model: The clergy-laity system!

Once these distinctions militate one against the other, the end results are the same: The stifling of the functioning of the members of the Body of Christ. The Laodiceans assuredly knew how to run a business and how to hire laborers, etc. Were talking about professional people here. They wanted the best in everythingincluding their clergy. Therefore, one could imagine the clergy coming in and out displaying their wares in order to be hired by the flock. The Holy Spirit? No, Jesus is outside the door of this church: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me (Revelation 3:20).

These Laodiceans were undoubtedly looking for the best of the preachers they could find. This inevitably leads to spiritual responsibility and leading the flock of God i.e., someones got to take spiritual responsibility for what goes on around here and since were paying for the best, we expect the best. This leads to a practice whereby the clergy is held accountable for the spiritual growth of the congregantsthey (the Laodicean members) have hired someone else to do their spiritual labors so they can rest on their laurels! Their thinking: I have need of nothing! And, something more sinister: Theres nothing that money cant buyeven spirituality.

The point to be made in both of these systems is the absence of the Headship of Christ and the lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit among the workers and among the churches. There is a divine balance that only Christ can maintain. To say there are not workers in the New Testament, distinct (but in no way superior or better than any other member of the Body of Christ) from other members of the Body of Christ in a given locality, is ludicrousthere is simply too much Scripture to substantiate such designations (examples will follow)but the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus, alone can maintain the counsel between them both.

In Zechariah 6:10-15 there is a beautiful type of Christ in the person of Joshua, the High Priest. Zechariah, the prophet, was asked to crown Joshua the High Priest as King: Behold, the man whose name is the BRANCH! The counsel of peace shall be between them both. Both? Yes, between the Priesthood (Joshua) and the Kingship (Zerubbabel); however, Zerubbabel was not here crowned kingJoshua was. The meaning of this is quite profound. Christ is not after the order of Aaron but is after the order of Melchizedek who was one of the Shepherd Kings he was both Priest and Kingi.e., PRIEST-KING. Only the coming BRANCH, the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, can bring peace (the counsel of peace) between the Priesthood (the High Priest) and the Kingship (the King). In Him these offices are united and in balance.

Today, the inevitability of a mixture of Church (the Priesthood) and State (the Kingship) leads to apostasy of the worst order. Such mixture is seen of the Woman (Harlot) who rides the Beast in Revelation 17. Church history is replete with apostasy and the mixture of Church and State and its subsequent forms of rank apostasy. Now, lets look for closely at the churches and the work lets see its biblical balance and its utter abuse!

THE CHARACTER OF THE CHURCHES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

First of all, in the New Testament there is the revelation of the Church wherein Paul states that "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision" which the Lord Himself had given to the Apostle. The raising up of local assemblies/churches within the New Testament was two-fold in nature:

(1) The Churches were totally independent and local--in point of fact they were distinctly "independent" and even (as we know today) "congregational" in their administration but we could also say that they were administratively designed (according to Revelation's 7 churches) so that their "character" was golden (i.e., perfect and divine as a unique expression of the Body of Christ, locally, in that particular city/community) but that each was unique, answering to the Lord and to each separate expression of the Body of Christ the Lord had a "peculiar word" (this is self-evident and totally without contestation--i.e., the word spoken by the Son of Man through "the Spirit saith to the churches" is plural in nature and specific in its import). It would fill pages to show how the churches in the New Testament were intensely "local in their administration" - each having their own elders/leaders/shepherds, etc. and, although they all identified as the "Churches of Christ" or the "Assemblies of God" (and I say this in a most "generic" sense and NOT in a denominational sense--know what I clearly mean here) - they were not DENOMINATIONAL in any way, shape or form--furthermore, Paul clearly was outspoken in this matter; to wit:

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions (i.e., schisms or dissensions) among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions (i.e. quarrels) among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or where you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect" (I Cor. 1:10-17).

Even to be "of Christ" denominates the Body of Christ! So not only did Paul protest this denomination of the Body of Christ, he addressed it on a local level and, therefore, he renounced it in concept "extra-locally. The "Churches of Asia" or the "Churches of Judea" were churches in a given region--but these churches were utterly INDEPENDENT in their administration but united with the churches both in their region and throughout wherever the gospel was preached wherein "Churches were raised up." BUT--their administration was DIRECTLY under the HEADSHIP of THE SON OF MAN, our Lord Jesus Christ! I think you get the drift of the local administration of the churches--whether they meet at Solomon's Porch in the Temple Area as in Jerusalem or whether they meet in one of the many "home churches" mentioned in the NT.

Although the churches are local in their administration (and this "local administration" is PRACTICAL in nature--i.e., a given community in the ancient world could be considered a given church--i.e., to the "Church in Ephesus" etc. - but today, and I will not hesitate to say this, communities are so vast (like Los Angeles) that it might very well be that there could be "separate administrations" (i.e., elderships) in a given local community for PRACTICALITY sake (though some might contest this could violate the "local administration" of the "churches" (but I think not). Notwithstanding this somewhat prickly point in the minds of some--the fact stands: HE IS LORD OVER THE LOCAL EXPRESSIONS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST. Likewise, He (i.e., The Son of Man) Had in His right hand seven stars . . . the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand . . . the seven stars are the angels (i.e., messengers) of the seven churches (Revelation 1:16 & 20). An abundance of evangelical Bible expositors attest that these messengers represent the local leadership in these churches in Asia Minor. So, the picture is cleareven the leadership of this local assemblies/churches is directly under the Headship of Christ.

THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY

Now, though the churches are local in character and nature, each "answering to the Lord" - the WORK OF THE MINISTRY is totally different both in its jurisdiction as well as in its affiliation. Let me explain. There is clear evidence that there were "associations of workers" in the New Testament -- those who "teamed up" with Paul; those who "teamed up" with Peter or with Barnabas or those who apparently "teamed up" with no one--apparently Phillip the Evangelist was akin to this (and, I might hasten to add that these "models" are purposefully somewhat "fluid" in their design by the Holy Spirit to keep brethren from, I believe, placing a STRAIGHT JACKET upon the Lord's people and upon the Lord's workers!). Yet, again, there were clearly these "association of workers" who were brought together under this Scripture:

But I want you to know, brethren, that the things which happened to me have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel, so that it has become evident to the whole palace guard, and to all the rest, that my chains are in Christ; and most of the brethren in the Lord, having become confident by my chains, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached: and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice (then read Phil. 1:19-26) . . . Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together (i.e., '"teaming up") for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:12-27).

Yes, Paul wrote this letter both to the saints in Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:1) and to its leadership (with the bishops (i.e., overseers) and deacons), but the point to be made here is that not only did he address their steadfastness in Christ but their "teaming up" for the faith of the gospel. In that "sense" even the churches could be considered part of the "teaming up" - but those who CO-LABOR with Paul are a far more INTENSE demonstration of the work of the Lord--AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE CHURCHES themselves. Let me continue . . .

And here we can thank the Holy Spirit for the intensity of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas (I knew there had to be a reason for its inclusion into Holy Writ!).

Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.' Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them TO THE WORK (my emphasis). Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches" (Acts 15:36-41).

This clearly demonstrates that there were obvious "teams of workers" who set out for the WORK. We also note here that the work exists for the CHURCHES and not for the work itself--the building up of the Body of Christ (i.e., to encourage local churches who might meet in homes or wherever and who have their own separate administration) is what the WORK is all about--notwithstanding, there is clearly the singling out of the WORK and what the work does: THE BUILDING UP OF THE CHURCHES.

Hence, Antipas Ministries is concerned for believers today to assemble in homes for more simplicity of fellowship and functioning of the Body of Christ (i.e., ye may all prophecy that all may be edified or built up). This distinction gives the maximum liberty to both the workers and to the churches and also protects both from interfering with the ADMINISTRATOR of the CHURCH--i.e., our Lord Jesus Christ! Again, the CHURCHES are NOT controlled or administered by the WORKERS and, conversely, though in fellowship, the WORKERS are NOT controlled/administered by the CHURCHES. Once this distinction is blurredA hierarchal structure will result with the end result, the curtailment of the functioning of each member of the Body of Christ!

THE HOLY SPIRIT DIRECTS THE WORK

It can be noted that Pauls initial calling to the WORK was under the DIRECT leadership of the Holy Spirit:

Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul FOR THE WORK to which I have called them. Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being SENT OUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus (etc.) . . . and they also had John (the infamous John Mark who was the center of friction in the separation between Paul and Barnabas but eventually came back to Paul as a profitable for the ministry brother) as their assistant (Acts 13:1-5). (NOTE: Caps mine)

Yes, it is from the local assembly at Antioch and from brethren ministering UNTO THE LORD that the Holy Spirit separated out certain brethren FOR THE WORK. And, yes, undoubtedly the brethren there laid hands on them but only as an acknowledgement of the Holy Spirits selectionTHEY WERE NOT SELECTED BY HUMAN HANDSbut by the Holy Spirit. How often today we see the manipulation of meneven well meaning, but the Holy Spirit has precious little in the selection!

THE WORKERS, THE CHURCHES, THE ELDERS & THE CHURCH IN ANTIOCH

Now, to further explore these relationships among the WORKERS (i.e., the WORK) , the CHURCHES and the ELDERS of those churches, as well as THE CHURCH IN ANTIOCH, we take a look at these passages:

And when they had preached the gospel in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God. So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed (please read to the end of Acts 14:24-28) (Acts 14:21-23).

Though this may appear nitpicking the Scriptures for the slightest justification for ones concepts relative to the separation of the work and the churches, we cannot handle the Word of God either deceitfully nor with prejudice to justify our own feelings or viewsthese accounts were given for our (I believe) safety and to maintain the Headship of Christ (or the direction of the Holy Spirit) over the workers and over the churches.

Soin the verses in Acts 14 we must discover what is the antecedent of the word they throughout these verses. Who is doing what here? The first they (i.e., Paul and Barnabas, etc.) appears to be the workers who are proclaiming/preaching the gospel in Derbe and making many disciples. Then they eventually returned to their starting point: Antioch. Here in Antioch they strengthened the souls of the disciples. Also, they appointed elders (literally: POINTED OUT ELDERS) in these various locations outside of Antioch (i.e., Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, etc.). Then, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. Here, it is again obvious that the workers did something very dramatic (actually)they COMMENDED them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 15:23)

Some have postulated this query: Who is controlling whom? Is the Church in Antioch somehow controlling the workers from whence they were sent and, are the workers controlling the churches that are forming in these new localitiesa sort of extension of the Church in Antioch? In other words: Whos administrating whom? Initially, the Holy Spirit selected Paul and Barnabas for the work. Then, these workers traveled around and preached the gospel, commenced churches and then returned to these places and appointed elders or pointed out those who were functioning as elders in those churches and then returned to home base (i.e., Antioch). So the question may arise, is ANTIOCH controlling these new churches by (1) sending out workers who then appoint elders and, thence, those churches are controlled and/or administered by the Church in Antioch; or (2) Antioch simply is the home base of these particular workers (for whatever time framesince Paul later spent several years at the Church in Ephesus). These workers are under the direct selection of the Holy Spirit and wherever the workers go and establish churches and point out the elders, they then commend them directly to the LordWho is the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some have even gone so far as to say that Antioch was controlling THEM (i.e., the Churches, the Elders and the Workers!).

But, as we have carefully reviewed these Scriptures we simply cannot conclusively entertain the idea that Antioch controlled the original workers so mentioned (i.e., Paul and Barnabas and their associate John Mark)for it was the Holy Spirit Who clearly is in view here as the SELECTOR and COMMISSIONER of these brethrenthe Church in Antioch simply laid their hands of CONFIRMATION to the WORKto which the Holy Spirit had sent them!

Furthermore, the churches, and ultimately the elders so selected by the workers, have a distinction about them wherein the WORKERS understood that they COMMENDED THEM (i.e., the churches and even the elders) TO THE LORD IN WHOM THEY HAD BELIEVED. Furthermore, these workers are NOT (per se) an EXTENSION of the Church in Antiochremember, the Holy Spirit has directly commissioned them! One might conclude that this commendation was designed to impress upon these new churches and elders that they were now under the administrative control of the Church in Antioch (and if you carry this little thread far enough you will secure the BISHOPRIC SYSTEM and ultimately the Catholic hierarchal system to its fullest extent). Ultimately: THE WORK CONTROLED BY THE CHURCH EVENTUALLY CONTROLS ALL THE CHURCHES!

One can see and conclude how the evolution of a clergy-laity system of hierarchy was so easily developed within the churches as stronger churches (like Antioch) became so dominant that they eventually CONTROLLED the other assemblies-to wit: DENOMINATIONALISM and not the Headship of Christ over the Churches and the administration of the Holy Spirit over the expansion of the WORK OF THE MINISTRY.

BUILDING ON ANOTHER MANS FOUNDATION

Likewise, there is the matter of building on another mans foundation to wit:

And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another mans foundations (Romans 15:20).

This somewhat peculiar text was easy for Paul to say in that hed show up in areas totally unchurched or full of unsaved peoplenow, that little environment is over! Yet, in a real sense it exists today. It is obvious, Gods people have the full liberty before the Lord to do whatever they think the Lord is telling them to do. However, just as Paul laid a certain foundation workers who team up together for a specific ministry should have a peculiar foundation which they also layit is in this sense: THEIR FOUNDATION.

From Gods Word we can say that such teams MAY change from time to time and the Word can also prove this. The Lords vineyard is vast. C. H. MacIntosh, the great Plymouth Brethren who wrote such classics as the PENTATUCH, relates this of the Aaronic Priesthoodthey were together under Aaron. Likewise, CHM states: We have many different functions in the priesthood but we all serve TOGETHER UNDER CHRIST. Aaron is the High Priestwe are all under him (i.e., under CHRIST) yet, there are clearly a host of functions and services but all UNDER CHRIST and serving together under Christ.

Therefore, we can concludeis ones order included in a particular service within the priesthood or is that person being called simply to SERVE TOGETHER UNDER CHRIST or UNDER CHRIST and within a specific order of the priesthood?

No, we here at ANTIPAS do not take teaming up lightly and, neither should those interested in joining us at a core level (as was Timothys case with Paul, etc.). The Lord has given wonderful insights to His people into His Word, coupled with a passion for soulsbut should these insights and passions for the souls of men be teamed up with Antipas Ministries? That is up to the Holy Spirit and to the individual. But for us here at Antipas HEAVY we want to team up with brothers and sisters who are all out for this message and will take a stand with a character like Elijah (i.e., the spirit of the prophet Elijah). Now, if the Lord, the Spirit, has spoken to someone about thisthen it is His calling, not oursto God be the glory!

"SPECIAL SAINTS" AND "COMMON
SAINTS" - IS THERE SUCH A THING?

The selection by the Holy Spirit for this work should NOT lead members of the Body of Christ into the haves and have nots that is absolutely abhorrent to everything that the Body of Christ is all about. Having delineated these distinctions as under the direct Headship of Christ and under the leadership of the Holy Spiritlet us examine some of the salient points which break down these barriers between the special saints and the so-called common saints if there is such a thing:

The ultimate consequence of workers controlling churches or churches controlling workers is the "clergy-laity system." When one group of brothers and sisters is called "special" and the other group is called "common" and "ordinary" the result to the church is invariably pernicious and destructive to the body-life.

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

"From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Eph. 4:15-16)

Ephesians 4:15-16 says that the increase of the body results when all the brothers and sisters in the church are working effectually together as a team - as a body. This is what builds up the body.

The Bible does say that God has given "... some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ..." (Eph. 4:11-12) - and there's no doubt that this is true. But the "spin" which many (indeed, most) put on this passage of Scripture has led to an untold amount of damage to the church and has resulted in the virtual paralysis of many of its members.

The rather unique (and somewhat convoluted) interpretation ("spin") which is put on these verses is this: unlike the passages in First Corinthians (which refer to the individual "talents" as the gifts which God has distributed to the "normal" and "common" members of the church), this passage of Scripture refers to the persons themselves as the gifts. In one set of passages (the one in First Corinthians) it's the talents that are the gifts to the church; in the other set of passages (the one in Ephesians) it's the persons who are the gifts to the church. The inference, of course, is quite clear: that there are certain brothers who are intrinsically qualified to be apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers; people who somehow or other are intrinsically more excellent than the "common," "ordinary" church members and who, as a result, constitute a special class of persons who are preferred above their fellow saints.

But no Christian holds anything intrinsically of himself. To say so is to misapprehend altogether what our real relationship is with Christ. Insofar as God is concerned, and insofar as His "gifting" is concerned, we are nothing more than empty vessels ["containers" - 2 Cor. 4:5-7)]. We are not "good" in and of ourselves; we are not "divine" in and of ourselves, we are not anything in and of ourselves - to say so is to make the same mistake that people like Kenneth Hagin and others in the "Latter Rain Movement" make when they say, "That's who we are, we're Jesus." No we're not!

The Bible does say that we are one with Christ, but it's not an intrinsic oneness, but a oneness of relationship. We are one with Christ in the same way we are one with our husbands and/or wives. The Bible says that a husband and wife are one. But the husband never becomes the wife and the wife never becomes the husband - they do not meld into some kind of creature, which is both male and female. They are not intrinsically one, they are one in relationship. This is what Paul meant when he wrote,

"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

"This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph. 5:30-32)

To be sure, apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers are gifts to the body. But they are gifts not because of their "personhood," but because of the talents God has given them. In like manner those who administer the gifts of "helps," "governments," "diversity of tongues," "miracles," "giving," "mercy," etc. are gifts to the church as well. The differentiation that some Christians make between the gifts given in Ephesians and the gifts given in First Corinthians is entirely a contrived and artificial one. And it's not that difficult to prove this point. If there is such a differentiation between these two lists (the list in Ephesians which is supposed to list only "persons" and the list in I Corinthians which is supposed to list only "talents") then why does the word "apostle" also appear in the list in I Corinthians? (I Cor. 12:13-30) - especially in view of the fact that the author here has gone to such great lengths to say that it (i.e., the word "apostle") doesn't - although he does admit that the word "prophet" and "teacher" appear in the list. What? Is the brother blind? How could he have missed it? Surely this should be enough to question this kind of reasoning!

We repeat, as Christians, we are nothing more than empty vessels for the Master's use - nothing more. The Bible says,

"For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

"But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. (2 Cor. 4:5-7)

Whatever we have as an office or as a talent emanates from Christ. There is nothing which proceeds out from our "personhood" that is good for the building up of the Body of Christ. Whatever we have results from Christ's workmanship. The Bible says,

"... we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:10)

Again we say, nothing that is good for the church can originate from us; we have no power of ourselves to do anything for Christ and His church; we don't even have the power to "change the color of one hair on our head" (Matt. 5:36), let alone build up the church. And be clear here, this is exactly what those who say that the gifts in Ephesians (i.e., the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastor/teachers) are implying when they say that these gifts refer to the person of the "gifted ones" rather than the gifts themselves. Again, we repeat: those who administer the gifts of "helps," "governments," "diversity of tongues," "miracles," "giving," "mercy," etc. are every bit as much gifts to the church as are the apostles and prophets. The distinction that some make between the gifts and the persons who possess those gifts (and between the passages of Scripture in Ephesians and First Corinthians is entirely a contrived one. Take another example, the convoluted reasoning in the following passage:

"I Cor. 12:8-10 enumerates the gifts given to individual believers. Eph. 4:11-12 speaks of the persons whom the Lord gives as gifts to the Church ... The persons themselves are gifts ... 'The Ministry' in Ephesians is unique and special. I Cor. 12 also speaks of ministry, but there it is the ministries (see verse 5, original Greek) which are of the common ordinary kind, of which the children of God receive severally before the Lord. The four gifts (i.e., persons) to the Church as cited in Eph. 4 are for "the work of the ministry': the nine gifts (i.e., talents) to individuals listed in I Cor. 12:8-10 are for the ministries as each person possesses a different gift for a different service ... One more thing is worth noticing: Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians all touch upon the Body of Christ; and yet even here they have their differences. Romans and Corinthians consider all the believers as members of the Body; consequently, all have gifts and functions (though they are not the same). Ephesians tells us how this Body is built by gifts (in this case, gifts in the form of men); it does not regard ... (this class) of persons as members of the Body, and thus their position is different from that of the rest of God's children."1

Thus, the author tries to differentiate between the gifts given to the church in Ephesians and the gifts given to the church in Romans and I Corinthians. The gifts in Ephesians he calls "persons;" the gifts in Romans and I Corinthians he calls "talents" - and from this he infers that those persons who are enumerated as "gifts to the church" constitute a "special class" of Christians whose position in the church is such that they should not even be numbered any longer with the "ordinary" saints. In order to strengthen his point, he elaborates:

"It is not that God has given His Church the gift of apostleship; [What? What about I Cor., especially 12:13-30 which this author himself claims is strictly a list of "talents?" How convenient for this brother to so completely ignore these verses by drawing an arbitrary line at I Cor. 12:10 and not continuing on with verses 13-30 - editor.] but that He has given it some men who are apostles; and He has not given the gifts of prophecy and teaching [Same comment as above - editor.] to His Church, but He has given some men as prophets and some men as teachers. God has set different kinds of workers in His Church for its edification, one of which is apostles. They do not represent a certain kind of gift, they represent a certain class of persons."2

He continues

"The difference between the apostles, and the prophets and teachers is that the latter two represent both gifts given by the Spirit to individuals and at the same time gifts given the Lord to His Church, whereas apostles [Same comment as before - editor.] are men given by the Lord to His Church, but they do not represent any special personal gift of the Spirit.3

Now, if all this is true, i.e., that there exists within the church a "special class" of people called apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers - a "class" so "special" that it should not even be numbered with the "ordinary" members of the church - then the clergy-laity system is a well-founded and grounded arrangement for the church, and the church's "ordinary saints" had better shut up and carry on with their "ordinary tasks" - i.e., cleaning out the meeting hall after meetings, putting up the chairs, cleaning the toilets, etc. - because that's all their good for. And believe me when I say, that's what countless numbers in the so-called clergy would like you to believe.

A FRAUD PERPETRATED ON THE CHURCH

But it's all a contrivance - a fraud created out of "whole cloth" (i.e., the air) for the purpose of creating a church of automatons and robots who will say "Aye, Aye Sir" and carry on; people who will obey without question and cause as little interference and trouble as possible for the church's leadership. While all this certainly makes for a "trouble-free" church, the cost to the church is enormous: essentially what it has done is strip the church of the talents of probably 95 percent of its members.

We repeat, when one class of people is called "special" and the other class of people is called "ordinary" and "common" what other outcome is possible? What are the so-called "ordinary" saints to think? If they are so "ordinary" and "common" what's the use of them doing anything? Now, again, Im not speaking here of various groups of workers called out by the Holy Spirit for a specific work related to the building up of churchesI am talking about such teams taking on a air of superiority and looking down their noses at the common folk in the pews! If they just quietly sit back and do nothing, no one will even miss them - and this is exactly what has happened in countless numbers of evangelical churches throughout the country. And then the so-called clergy has the temerity to ask with exasperation, why don't the members function more than they do? The blindness of the clergy on this point is mind-boggling! [Of course, it's only fair to say that the so-called "ordinary" saints have their revenge on the clergy insofar as this is concerned; and it pertains to their control of the finances of the church and, ipso facto, the clergy's paychecks, as well as the rigorous and hard-hearted scrutiny they subject the clergy (and their families) to. I can tell you, what the clergy has done to the laity is more than compensated for by what the laity has done to the clergy.] What all this has created in the church is a schism so wide that ten Mack trucks could drive through it side-by-side with twenty feet to spare on either margin.

THE GIFTED ONES vs. THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT

But let's step back for a moment and examine the Scriptural basis upon which this interpretation rests - i.e., that there exists a difference between the way the gifts of God are defined in Ephesians as opposed to First Corinthians and Romans.

Those who maintain that the gifts mentioned in Ephesians are persons and those that are mentioned in Romans and First Corinthians are merely "talents" do so by stretching the meaning of these verses to the breaking point. For example, if the gifts mentioned in Ephesians are persons (i.e., apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers, then why is the gift of prophecy also mentioned in both Romans (Rom. 12:6) and First Corinthians? (1 Cor. 12:10 - also "apostles" in I Cor. 12:13-30) and why is the gift of teaching mentioned in the list of gifts in Romans (Rom. 12:7)? After all, the list of gifts in First Corinthians and Romans are supposed to be the "common," "ordinary" gifts of the Spirit, while the gifts mentioned in Ephesians are the "special" gifts of the Holy Spirit. Why would the Word, then, so cavalierly mix the "common" and "ordinary" with the "special?" How careless of God to allow such a mishap to occur!

It's a problem? - still, the clergy has an answer, a very convoluted, contrived and enigmatic one to be sure, but an answer nonetheless. It is maintained that the gifts of teaching and prophecy are both "ordinary" gifts and "special" gifts;" that is to say, on occasion the gifts of teaching and prophecy are merely "talents," and on other occasions they are "persons." This is like looking at two lists, one of which mentions a partial list of talents, i.e., (1) the gift of dancing, (2) the gift of acting, (3) the gift of producing and (4) the gift of directing; and a second list which mentions a partial list of people who possess these talents, i.e., (1) singers, (2) producers, and (3) directors, and deducing from this that since the gift of singing is not mentioned in the first list (which lists talents), but is mentioned in the second list (which lists those who possess these talents), then the gift of singing is a person and not a talent. The absurdity here is mind-boggling. No normal person in his right mind would jump to this kind of conclusion. Yet this is the kind of thinking that the clergy has imposed on the laity to justify their "special" position in the church; and concomitantly the kind of thinking that the laity has so foolishly gone along with. In the "real world," most would conclude that the two lists are partial lists which compliment and supplement each other and are expressed in the way that they are to fit the context in which they were used. Such partial lists (i.e., lists which both compliment and supplement each other) exist throughout the Bible. The phenomenon is common. Take one example - the example of the Gospel narratives of what Jesus both did and said while here on earth. The Book of Matthew has one list; the Book of Mark has another. Some things which are mentioned in Matthew are not mentioned in Mark, and some things which are mentioned in Mark are not mentioned in Matthew. Some things are common to both narratives. The accounts compliment and supplement each other. And so it is throughout the Scriptures.

No one would suggest that because something was mentioned in Matthew and not in Mark, that it held some "special" significance. But this is exactly the convoluted thinking which goes into the kind of reasoning which sees a difference between the gifts which are mentioned in Ephesians and the gifts which are mentioned in Romans and first Corinthians. This is nonsense! For example, when speaking of talented persons who are engaged as workers in the theater, one would speak of dancers, singers, actors, producers and directors; but when speaking of those gifts that these same people need if they are to be hired for the production the theater is putting on, one would speak of the talent of dancing, the talent of singing, the talent of acting, the talent of producing and the talent of directing. One list emphasizes the person who has the talent, and the other list emphasizes the talents the person must possess if he is to engage in such activity. Singers possess the talent of singing, and the talent of singing is given to singers. In the end, however, it's all one in the same thing.

There is the gift of "apostlizing" (i.e., starting new churches and strengthening them on a worldwide basis), the gift of prophesying, the gift of evangelism, the gift of pastoring and teaching, the gift of administrating, the gift of ruling, the gift of helping, the gift of giving, the gift of mercies, the gift of tongues, the gift of interpreting tongues, the gift of distinguishing spirits, etc. and those who possess these gifts are called apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, administrators, rulers, helpers, givers, etc. To say anything different is to stretch the Scriptures beyond the breaking point and defy all the rules of common sense. Moreover, to say that there exists within the church a "special class" of people which exist on a plain above and beyond that of the "ordinary" and "common" saints of God flies in the face of the main thrust of all the other teachings on the body-life of the church.

THE CHURCH AND THE WORK ARE ONE IN PURPOSE

The Bible teaches that the church builds itself up in love (Eph. 4:15-16), and that each and every saint is responsible for this "building-up." It is a corporate matter, not a matter that pertains exclusively to some "special class." Christianity is a priesthood of all believers, not just the special few; it is a brotherhood of "equal believers" (Scofield, pg. 1332). Indeed, Jesus spoke specifically against the division of his followers into "a clergy" and a "laity" when He said,

"... the Pharisees (i.e., the religious rulers of the Jews) sit in Moses' seat:

"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

"But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

"And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

"And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi (master, master; teacher, teacher).

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

"And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matt. 23:2-12) [Please see the note #1 on page 1332 of the Scofield Reference Bible.]

In this very real senseall the brothers and sisters in the church are called "into the work," not just the "chosen," "special" few. All the brothers and sisters have been "qualified" for "the work;" all of them have been "gifted" for "the work."

There is, to be sure, a difference of "scope" insofar as some of the work is concerned (to which I have addressed at the beginning of this piece); but that difference can be both geographical and foundational in nature. For example, apostles and prophets have been called into a work which - to a large extent - is "extra-local" in its nature; in other words, it deals with the church on a worldwide basis rather than on a local basis and, as a result, a great deal of travel is involved in these ministries which is not necessarily true in the ministry of some of the other saints, for example, "pastoring," "helps," "governments," "diversities of tongues," etc. These ministries - unlike the ministries of the apostles and prophets - are largely local in nature and require very little travel. Some ministries have both a local and an extra-local nature (for example, teaching, healing, miracles, etc.).

To a large degree, those ministries which are "extra-local" in nature and which by definition require a lot of travel and an inordinate amount of time must of necessity be defined as "full-time" work and for that reason they should be supported by the saints - but only for that reason, and not because they are members of some special caste which is preferred by God over and above the "ordinary" and "common" brothers and sisters in the church. Whether or not a person is a full-time worker is a practical matter with very little spiritual significance attached to it. Just because someone is a "worker" (i.e., a pastor, a worker of miracles, a healer, someone who is involved in "governments," etc.) does not necessarily mean that he should be supported by the churches - especially when the scope of his ministry encompasses just one house-church.

Furthermore, and as we have previously discussed, not only can their be a geographical difference there can also be foundational differences; specifically, as it was with Paul the Apostlehe was called to preach to the Gentilesin his day, THAT was a very foundational calling and work.

We repeat, the division of the church wherein its "workers" not only operate independently from the churches but attempt to control churches or "members" who circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit over workers is a pernicious and evil thing. It leads invariably to the imposition of a "pastoral system" which divides the church into "doers" and "listeners" - but as we have already indicated, when one class of people is called "special" and the other class of people is called "ordinary" and "common" what other outcome is possible? We ask again, under such a regime, what are the so-called "ordinary" saints to think? If they are so "ordinary" and "common" what's the use of them doing anything? If they just quietly sit back and do nothing, no one will even miss them - and this is exactly what has happened in countless numbers of evangelical churches throughout the country.

We repeat, what all this has created in the church is a schism between the usurping control of full-time workers and the so-called "ordinary" saints so wide that in many churches and denominations it is no longer possible to repair the breach. This kind of thinking - the kind of competitive thinking which leads to the division of the church into a "clergy" and a "laity," or a "worker" looking down his nose at a "member" group or class (or vise-a-versa) is ruinous to the body-life and destructive to the establishment of a house-church movement bent on returning the obligation of the church-life back to all the saints.

If the saints of God perceive the church as something which has been divided into a class of "doers" and a class of "listeners," then all hope for a dynamic church-life in these last-days is finished - and when tribulation comes, the American Church will collapse just as quickly as the Church in Germany did in the face of Hitler's onslaught.

We repeat, the church belongs to all the members; the work of the church belongs to all the members; the joy of the church-life belongs to all the members; and the obligations of the church-life belong to all the members.

If the saints once see this, then it is possible for them to participate in a house-church movement in these last-days. Again, Antipas Ministries does NOT discount the clear teaching of Scripture concerning teaming up with other members of the Body of Christ for a specific work directly related to the building up of the churches but this must be a commission of the Holy Spirit, and that team of workers, insofar as their work within the churches must ultimately and always commend them to the Lord for He is the Head of the Body of Christ and the Holy Spirit directly calls out brethren for the workyet, every single member of the Body of Christ is essential-all can pray, give, evangelize, worship, prophecy, etc., that ALL may be EDIFIED (built up).

©Copyright - Antipas Ministries