The Church

Transcript

Good afternoon everyone, thank you very much, Bonnie, for the special music.  It's a rare opportunity and a privilege to speak to all of you here in Dallas.  It seems it's even more rare these days I haven't even heard from our pastor in quite a while so I, sounds like we'll hear from him next week.  Although we'll be gone next week; lot of things going on, lot of  travel; heading up to the spring holy days actually.  Hard to imagine but the spring holy days will be here very very shortly.  A few weeks away; nine weeks I believe or somewhere there about.  So it's all going to be happening very quickly.  

Also nine days ago I returned from an extensive trip through India, Sri Lanka and Abu Dhabi.  Actually the United Arab Emirates, which Abu Dhabi is a city there.  It was a wonderful trip filled with many memorable moments visiting with the brethren.  I just really their stories were fascinating and inspiring.  

Actually in spite of all the travel we did, we traveled approximately 25,000 miles by air and probably another 1,000 miles by vehicle.  I can assure you the 1,000 miles by vehicle were a lot more stressful than the 25,000 miles by air.  Their driving methods and their driving practices leave a whole lot to be desired.  You think Dallas might be bad, I would suggest you try Calcutta, India.  And then tell me how bad the traffic is here.  There seems to be no rules to for anything.  You drive where you want, when you want.  And essentially my impression is that if they do have traffic police, I didn't see any but they've given up on trying to change the habits; it's just the way it is.  

But it was fascinating and inspiring.  One story that I actually didn't tell or write about occurred when we were in New Delhi.  When Mr. Baker and I arrived in New Delhi, we picked up the newspaper the first morning we were there and it wasn't on the font page but about two or three pages in there was a big pretty big headline on that particular page that said, "There were two 'man-eaters' two tigers loose or obviously they were loose, they were in the wild, in the northern part of India and they had killed in one case, a tiger killed five people, six people another case a tiger killed three people."  

And while that that was an interesting story well, a few days later, we actually went to the area where the tigers, one of the tigers was.  And in India the tigers are protected.  You cannot kill a tiger.  And they estimate there are about 1700 of them still in the wild.  And of course they have a lot of villages that are out in rural areas that are often threatened by these tigers.  Once a tiger becomes a man-eater, which is only after they've killed at least three people, they're declared a man-eater. And then they hire professional hunters to go out and look for them and kill them.  And even when we left India, which was two weeks later, they still had not killed or captured theses tigers.  

But we went to Moradabad which is where we have a large largest group of members is in this area.  And one of the gentleman is a man by the name of Neal Doshland is his name.  And he lived in a village which was one of the villages that was being threatened by this tiger.  Mr. Baker didn't tell me we were going to that village before we went or I might have had second thoughts.  Although again we never felt that we were threatened.  

But you go to this village where the member lives, and their very threatened in this village.  I believe one individual was killed in this village.   This village sits out in the middle of sugar cane fields and is surrounded by rural areas.  And it's a small village and these tigers at least in this case the tiger was roaming the area and of course, killing people.  Neil did tell me that he had previous to this particular episode had been sleeping in the pasture with his cattle.  And the reason for that is that the cattle had been stolen earlier and it was a big ordeal to get them back.  So he was sleeping in the pasture with his cattle but after this threat, he was no longer sleeping in the pasture.  He was now sleeping in his home.   And they had a threat in this village they told everybody to stay in, not to be out after dark until this tiger had been killed.  

So I thought you know that's an unusual thing here we have a member living at a remote village in India and his major concern at that time was a tiger in the jungle or in the woods or in the a bush as it would amount to and quite a bit different than a member living in the United States.  Where our concerns and our fears would be much different.  

It just stuck me quite; quite impressed upon me the fact that we have members essentially on the other side of the world who have the same knowledge, the same truth we do but they have different lives; very very different lives.  And understanding that and being able to visit with those people was one of the most remarkable things I've done in many years although I've done this before, it was still quite a remarkable thing.  And I hope in all the reports and the articles it's come across that these brethren who have been faithful over many many years in some cases, going all the way back to the 60s have faced a very different life than you and I face.  
But we have the same goal, the same desires and looking forward to the same future. 

I'd like to begin this afternoon with the scripture that I ended the In Accord with on Thursday.  Turn with me to Luke, chapter 18, Luke, the 18th chapter.  In Luke 18 Jesus Christ gives the parable of the persistent widow.  And you're familiar with this particular story or parable that Christ gave, but then I want you to look at verse 7 where Christ says, Luke 18:7 "And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him," I find it interesting that Christ uses the term "of His elect" and He also talks about them crying out "day and night"  The idea that if you live a godly life, everything will always go well, simply isn't true; or that if things don't go well, something must be wrong in your life.  Now there may be something wrong in your life.  We all stumble and fall.  But to think that life will not have its challenges is simply to not read correctly the scriptures. 

So God will avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him. "though He bears long with them?"  That God doesn't always resolve a problem immediately.  And in sometimes it may be actually years.  But He talks about His elect; He talks about a crying out day and night.  But then, verse 8.  Luke 18:8 "I tell you that He will avenge” ((He will avenge) "them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?"  

That's an interesting question and I found it interesting this isn't something new.  Over the many years of pondering this particular question that Christ asked his disciples.  Now Christ later on says that He doesn't know the timing of His return; that only the Father knows.  But I have to believe that Christ knew it wasn't going to be immediately.  You know 2000 years have gone by now.  Whether He knew that or not is a bit hard to say at that point but that it wasn't going to happen right afterwards.  Wasn't going to happen right away.  Now we know the disciples were urgent, the Apostles were urgent and expected Christ to return very soon.  

But why would Christ ask the disciples a question about something that won't happen until the end of the age?  Was He pondering this Himself?  Did He have a firm opinion about this?  Or was He simply wanting His disciples to think about it in reflection on their own lives?  I think any of those are possible.  I don't know which one actually is true.  

The Bible in basic English translates this verse this way, "But when the Son of Man comes, will there be any faith on the earth?"  Now I don't believe that Jesus Christ was a pessimist.  I believe He was optimistic as to what would happen down the road with the church.  But He asked this question.  At the end of the age will there be anyone who is faithful?  Will there be anyone left?  Is it because Christ knew of the trails that would be coming?  Is it because that Jesus Christ knew how hard it would be in a world that is so twisted and perverted to actually be faithful to God?  Why?  What's behind it?  

Twenty years ago there were several congregations of the Worldwide Church of God in India.  To see the small number of people who have remained faithful today from that period of time was on one hand inspiring, there are those who remain faithful.  But on the other hand, it was very sad.  What has happened to the church in the past twenty years?  

I mentioned already this past week another pioneer of the early days of the Church of God going back to the Radio Church of God past from the scene. Leroy Neff, as I mentioned died this past Tuesday evening.  I first met Mr. Neff, although I'd seen him before, he'd visited our congregation when I was just a teenager.  But I first met him 1968; he died at the age of 90, faithful to the calling he received more than 60 years prior.  But where are the others?  Of course several other have died during that period of time, but what about all the others?

Take a snapshot of the church twenty years ago, 1994, Jan, February now of 1994, twenty years ago and then fast forward to February 1, 2014.  What are the similarities?  What are the differences?  Who's here?  I don't mean here in Dallas but who's here in the church, who isn't?  Why?  What's happened?  How difficult is it today compared to twenty years ago?  

This afternoon I want to talk about one of the fundamental beliefs of the Church of God.  In fact it is so fundamental, that it’s a topic that describes who we are, why we exist.  No matter our background, upbringing in life.  We've all taken the title or the name; whether we use it very often or not of Christian, of Christian.  

And we all profess to be a part of the Church of God, the very same church that was founded by the apostles on the day of Pentecost in the first century over, well, not yet but almost 2,000 years have passed.  

How would you define the church today?  How would you find the church today?  Where is it?  What does it look like?  How would you describe it today?  I submit to you that twenty years ago you would have looked around in a congregation that probably would have consisted of many more people than you see today.  Even in small cities you would have probably looked around and seen a church that was a bit different than you see today.  

What adjective would you use to describe the church in 1994?  Alert?  Awake?  Asleep?  You know there are any number of other terms you might use to describe the church.  How about 2014?  Many would agree that the church today could be described as scattered and divided.  Those are terms that we would probably all to one degree or another at least agree with.  At one time we looked upon the church as the source of truth.  Now I would hope and I would hope we have never never allowed the church or anyone to replace the Bible.  

But the church was a place that we expect to have the Bible explained.  That we expected to go and hear the Bible taught.  Sadly and again I am speaking in very general terms, today it seems for some the church is simply not that relevant.  Nor does it have really any answers when it comes to explaining what the Bible says or what we believe.  Well, why?

What has happened over the last twenty years?  How are we today and how would we define the church today?  And how did we get to where we are in twenty some ways short years just using that as an arbitrary selection of time? 

A number of years ago I read a book by a lady named Karen Mains, M-a-i-n-s.  And in her book she has a parable.  And this parable has been used, you may have heard it before but in some ways, it becomes or it is very appropriate when it comes to describing in a physical parable or in a parable the concept of the church as the bride of Christ.  And she writes this parable this way: says, "Down front stands the groom in a spotless tuxedo, handsome, smiling full of anticipation.  Shoes shined, every hair in place, anxiously awaiting the presence of His bride.  All attendants are in place looking joyful and attractive.  The magical moment finally arrives as the pipe organ reaches full crescendo and the stately wedding march begins.  

Everyone rises and looks towards the door for their first glimpse of the bride. Suddenly there's a horrified gasp.  The wedding party is shocked!  The Groom stares in embarrassed disbelief.  Instead of a lovely woman dressed in elegant white, smiling behind a lace veil, the bride is limping down the isle.  Her dress is soiled and torn, her leg seems twisted, ugly cuts and bruises cover her bare arms.  Her nose is bleeding, one eye is purple and swollen and her hair is disheveled.  Does not this handsome Groom deserve better than this, ask the author?  And then the clincher, the final comment that she writes:  alas His bride, the church, has been fighting again! 

The concept of fighting or quarrelling or division has certainly been a part of the church in the last twenty years.  Maybe you could say the last 2,000 years.  I'm not all that convinced, if you look at church history, that you'll find a lot of difference in many ways over the last 2,000 years.  What you don't find, in most of the 2,000 years of church history, is a period of time where people were in large areas where there were a large numbers of members, you find primarily scattered congregations in regions.  So it's very difficult to compare the history of the church in 2,000 years to what we experienced in the 1970s or 80s or 60s and even in the 1990s.  It's very very difficult to compare. 

Something dramatic happened in the church, I truly believe beginning, you would say in the 1930s.  Radio and the mass media opportunities that presented itself to the church created a whole different dynamic in church history during that particular period of time that brought together large numbers of people.  Large by certainly our standards; maybe by the world's standards still not all that large.  But in 1994, 1995, twenty years ago doctrinal changes truly divided the church, as we knew at that time.  Doctrinal change is often been the cause of organizational division.  

Turn with me to Titus, chapter 2.  Titus, the second chapter.  The apostle Paul in writing to Titus about the church and you find in the pastoral epistles where Paul often, it seems, sort of ruminates about what the church should be like and passes that vision and image on to those he was training, Titus and Timothy.  Titus, chapter 2 in the New King James version there's a there's a heading at the top, it says, "Qualities of a sound church, qualities of a sound church."  Then you go down to verse 7, says, Titus 2:7 "in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility," then verse 8 "sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say"  (about) "of you".  Or "to say of you."  So, we see that doctrine is extremely important.  

We, in one sense, fought a major battle over that particular issue back in 1994-1995.  Turn with me to 1st Timothy, chapter 3, again in the apostle Paul's pastoral epistles.  Notice verse 14, verse 14.  The title here that's been added here by the translator's of the New King's James is "The Great Mystery."  And it says in verse 14: 3Tim 14: "These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write” (notice this) "so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground" (or foundation) "of the truth."  The Bible seems to be clear and the apostle Paul was clear.  I believe Christ was clear in the establishment of the church that the church is to be the repository of truth.  It is to be the place where doctrine is certainly taught properly, correctly and that the beliefs are explained and expounded in a proper and godly way.  

Paul also mentions to Timothy that there is a manner of conduct that's acceptable in the church.  There is a manner of conduct that's unacceptable in the church.  The church is not irrelevant, the church is not something that while you sort of take it or leave it, the church is a huge part of and should be a huge part of who we are and what we do.  It was established by Jesus Christ not by a human being, it was founded with the power of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.  It is a tool, an instrument that God will use, does use and we pray continues to use in those of us today.  

The Church of God has a simple statement in our fundamental belief describing the church.  I would believe that all of us understand this as being the definition of the church.  The Church of God is a spiritual body composed of believers who have and are being led by the Holy Spirit.  The Church is not a denomination, a human organization, or a building.  But the people God is working with in any age.  The Biblical name of this church is the Church of God.  Its mission is to preach the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God to all nations and to make disciples of all who respond to God's calling assisting them in their spiritual development and reconciliation to God.  

Now you have to take that definition and I have to take that definition and we have to look in a mirror and say, "Are we that church?  Do we conduct ourselves as that church?  Are we doing what that church is supposed to be doing?  Do we act the way that church is supposed to be acting?"  Now don't get me wrong, no one believes at least I don't think anyone believes, that the church is or ever has been perfect!  

I believe Christ in His sermon on the Mount, as it's referred to in Matthew chapter 5, states it very clearly that we are to do what?  Become perfect.  If you are to become perfect, then that means you are not perfect.  You're not to become something you already are.  I believe we all recognize that the Church of God has never been perfect and will never be perfect.  But, we should never cease striving for perfection.  And there is a standard of conduct that we should acknowledge as a part of the Church of God. 

Let's begin from the beginning.  In this sermon this afternoon I want to talk about the church, I want to talk about the church in 2014, I want to talk about the church from twenty years ago, I want to talk about the church.  

I believe the church should be; I believe it is for the vast majority, central to our lives.  Does it create a relationship with God?  It doesn't replace a relationship with God.  But it is a relationship that God gave to us and He put a lot of emphasis on it.  

The entire New Testament in one way or other talks about forms a certain part of what the church is or who the church is.  If we had no church, why would we have the letter to the Corinthians?  The letter to the Galatians?  The letter to the Ephesians?  The letter to the Philippians?  This is the majority of the New Testament is about the church in some aspect of how we live.  To relegate the church to a minor part of our lives to just something irrelevant today is to miss the point in many ways of the very New Testament itself.  

A new covenant relationship, we've talked about that (that was abused and misused back twenty years ago) to confound and confuse people about what the Bible really says.  But it is true that a new covenant relationship isn't the same as the relationship that was in the Old Testament; that this spiritual relationship under the new covenant involves a church.  All we can talk about Israel is being the congregation in the wilderness, which it truly was; it was a physical nation.  

The people of God today form together in a body that's called the church.  But where does it begin?  Let's go to John, chapter 6.  Jesus Christ knew, I believe He knew, that before His death or after His death I should say, that a church would be founded.  You find in the early writings if you look at it chronologically, the early writings, the gospel writings, that there is no mention of a church.  There's the synagogue, there's the Jewish religion, there are the opponents or the opposition that Christ faced as He went about teaching from the religious leaders but the church is non-existent.  Of course after Christ the church is founded.  But Christ explains in several locations principles that are going to guide the church.  

I always remember back in the about 1994 when the discussion over the new covenant and what does it mean?  That there was a bit of confusion and that somehow the apostle Paul was to interpret Christ.  I mean that was one of the theological definitions we were given.  Well if you want to understand what Christ really meant, you have to read Paul.  The point in that was that Paul superceded Christ!  That Paul's writings were THE final say.  Forget about what Christ said, Paul is the one, again the new covenant and so on.  That was one of the twisted ways of reasoning that produced a lot of the issues that occurred or a lot of the problems in confusion that occurred in 1994 and 1995.  But that's not true.  

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church; therefore what Christ said is applicable to the church.  Not just to a group of Jews who were alive at that time who happen to be following Him.  It's applicable to the church.  So in that line, Christ says in John, chapter 6, verse 44, He lays out a principle that has driven the church for the last almost 2,000 years and was trumpeted, rightly so I believe, during the last 50 to 100 years, when it came to filtering the work of the church through this concept.  

Verse 44, John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."  Now draws him to what?  Draws him where?  What does this really mean?  Well, it becomes very clear once the church is founded.  That God, the Father, is actively involved in the church.  Christ said it's My church, I will build it, but the Father is actively involved.  Everything from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 is it both God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, or The Word, are actively involved.  There's never a period of time where either one of them isn't involved.  This is the way it is, John 6:44.  The Father draws.  

Now you can take one of two opinions on that or one of two approaches.  You can say we have nothing to do with it.  That's not what Christ said.  That's it's entirely the Father who's going to randomly select people over the next 2,000 years and put them in His church.  Or, that's one conclusion that some may reach, which means that we have nothing to do except sort of satisfy ourselves from one Sabbath to the next from one Holy Day to the next, from one year to the next, from one decade to the next.  Or, you can take the conclusion or take the approach: that well, that's not true, that we do have something to do with those who will be called.  There are multiple things that we have to do.  

We must make the gospel available.  It's been proven historically that when the gospel is preached, people will be called.  When the gospel is preached, people will be called.  That's simple a fact of history.  It should also reinforce in our minds that the further reach we have with the gospel message, the more we would expect God to call.  Now again the final number is in God's hands.  

We also know and it's been a truism for the last twenty years that in spite of many many publications, programs and so many things that have been done, that the majority of growth in the church and again I maybe, I don't have facts to absolutely prove this but I believe it's true, it's maybe anecdotal, that the majority of those who've been called in the last twenty years have been through the example, the conduct, the work, you might say, of the membership.  That in the last twenty years that most people, who've been drawn or come into the church, knew someone in the church or were related to someone in the church or saw someone in the church before they ever read a magazine or ever heard a program.  Again that's what's happened.  But where the gospel is available, through personal example, through our own words and deeds and through a unified work to spread a message around the world, God has called people; God has called people.

Consider that your life dramatically changed when you entered the church.  You found a new group of people; you now spend the Sabbaths in worship and fellowship, you also observe the annual Holy Days.  None of that is done by those outside the church of course you could say that everyone does everyone who does those things, is everyone who does that also in the church?  Again, I I'm not here to assess who is or who isn't; simply to explain the Biblically perspectives.   

In Mr. Neff's autobiography he wrote this: he says, "1951 was the major turning point of our lives.  We decided on a way of life that meant we would lose most, if not all of our friends."  It was in January of 1951 that he heard Herbert Armstrong for the first time.  And in August of 1951, he and his wife, Maxine, attended services for the first time.  He mentions there were 40 or so people crammed into a schoolhouse in Portland, Oregon.  And that he had left the church that had 2500 members in that area.  I we can all relate to that.  We can all tell a similar story of how the church, coming into the church, really changed our lives.  

I mentioned before that when my mother came in in a connection with the church in 1952, she was 22 years old and had two small children.  And had to stand-alone against her entire Baptist family.  But she did.  And never wavered and today she's 84, will be 84 years old this year.  That's a long history of standing firm on what you believe.  

The church forever changed most of our lives, most of our lives.  The church was a moment in time or I should say our calling and coming into the church was a moment in time that we can truly look back to and say there was a life before and a very different life afterwards.  

In his book, Mystery of The Ages, Mr. Armstrong wrote this, it says " So once again what and why is the church?  The church is the called-out from this world, the begotten children of God.  It is the body of Christ.  It is the spiritual organism that shall be the bride of Christ after its resurrection to immortality.  Then it shall be married to Christ.  It is the spiritual temple to which Christ shall come at His second appearing."  

Is the church really comparable to the temple from days gone by?  You know Christ gave deference to the temple.  He, in spite of the problems and issues that were there, He referred to the temple as My Father's house and He referred to it as a house of prayer.  So, if you draw that analogy of the church and the temple, there is an element of holiness, there's an element of worship obviously, an element of religion, not just an element of religion, a religion that has a deep connection with God over the 6,000 year history of humanity.  

It's an amazing story, amazing the church is amazing.  The church is something that God created.  We use the term spiritual organism; we mean that the church is not a physical structure, but it's a group of people with a common faith and a common spirit.  And it is to be the foundation of the truth.  That is, it must be founded on the truth. It must have the truth.  

Let's go to Matthew 16.  This is the first occurrence in the English Bible of the word "church." We're quite a bit a ways along in the ministry of Jesus Christ and this is the first time the word "church" is mentioned.  Again in the English, verse 18.  Matt 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."  

I have to believe that when the disciples heard these words, they had to reflect upon what they knew, which would be the synagogue or which would be the Temple as being quote: "the house of God, house of the Father, the house of prayer" and they probably drew some sort of connection.  

But in the Greek, this word is quite telling, it's translated "church."  And the word itself is "ecclesia" "ecclesia."  It has with built within this word a root word, klesis or klesis k-l-e-s-i-s or some would say kleesis.  The word klee-sis or klay-sis means invitation, a call or a calling.  And it's so translated that way in Romans 11 and Ephesians 1.  So, built within this word is a spiritual component, a spiritual calling.  Well, aha!  We go back to John 6 and the calling must come from the Father.  So, built within the concept of the church is a God-calling group of people.  The word ect means out of- so ect clay cia means out of-- called out of.  Now that would be the enological way to approach the word.  But scholars approach it a little differently and I'm not suggesting that either one is necessarily totally correct.  I think elements of both are correct.

The theological dictionary of the New Testament abridged in one volume by Kittel and Friedrich says this, "Since the New Testament 'ecclesia' is given it's specific empress by the Old Testament, (in other words, we have to consider the Old Testament in understanding the word), the history is more important than the entomology.  The entomology appears clear: called-out from, a calling, invitation, invitation from somewhere to somewhere else.  You're moving from one place to another.  You're not staying where you are."  But he says the history is more important than the entomology.  "Especially as neither kaylene nor ecklitose occurs in the New Testament.  And both are very rare in the Septuagint.  When a word is rarely used, it's often more difficult to determine exactly what the origin or meaning of it is.  The New Testament writers are unlikely to have had the idea of called-out in mind."  I’m quoting from the book. "Are unlikely to have had the idea of called-out in mind when they spoke about the 'ecclesia.'  If the church does in fact consist of those whom God has called-out of the world, this relates to material rather than linguistic considerations."  

What is always meant and this is where I would certainly agree, is the Assembly of God.  I think this book makes an interesting point.  I don't think it eradicates what I see as a very clear concept of being called out of the world, that the Assembly of God or those who have been called out of the world.  But they make a very interesting point: that we and we should not discount it that the concept of the church is a concept of gathering together.  You cannot ignore the fact that built within the very Greek word; "ecclesia" is a gathering of people.  
Now while there are occasions where people must meet alone, or meet by themselves or in a home or whatever, the concept of "ecclesia" the concept of a church is a gathering.  A group getting together by definition it means groups of people who meet together.  There's an implied action on the part of a Christian to gather together.  It's not an accident that we're here today.  It's not an accident that we come back next week and the next week.  It is by design of the church.  It is by definition of the church.  

Now if you understand that, then you truly see how Hebrews 10 verse 25 takes on even more significance.  The meaning of assembling together is critical to the understanding of the church and vine supports this by saying the "ecclesia" means "assemblage, gathering, meeting, a church meeting, when you come together." If you put those two concepts together, then I think you have a fuller picture of the intent of the church.  It is composed of people who have been called out of the world.  It's composed of people though who are compelled to meet together.  It isn't that they have to be told you should meet together, although Hebrews does make that point, it's we are compelled to meet together.  That is the essence of the church.   A group of people who meet together.

Now you add on top of this another layer.  This other layer is the concept of being a Christian, being a Christian.  What does that term mean?  In our society today the term Christian refers more to one's philosophy than to one's conduct in life.  In other words you have a certain belief, which is very broad and very general; therefore, you can claim the title of "Christian" even though your conduct or your actions may not at all be Christian.  

The truth of the matter is that Christian carries a much deeper meaning.  Notice Acts, chapter 11. In Acts, the 11th chapter we have the first mention of the word Christian.  Acts, chapter 11, verse 26.  Acts 11:26 " and when he found him,"  (Barnabas is looking for Saul) "and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church, assembled with the church and taught a great many people.  And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.  

The term Christian is only found three times in scripture: Acts 11:26, Acts 26 verse 28 and 1st Peter 4, verse 16.  It wasn't a common word.  At least it's not recorded commonly that the people who followed Christ were necessarily called Christian.  It's a term that developed later on and quite honestly it developed more in the concept of the false church than it did truly in the true church. Although again the term "Christian" did stick and was used and has been used and it's certainly an appropriate word.  That's not my point.  

But what is a Christian?  A Christian is clearly someone who believes in Christ.  A Christian is someone who lives a godly life.  A Christian is someone who is a member of the Church.  A Christian is someone who helps needy people.  And a Christian is of course, someone who believes in God.  There are occasions in the New Testament where the apostle Paul actually goes out of his way to tell you what actions are not Christian.  You sometimes read 1st Corinthians 5: verses 9-13, let's go there because Paul defines Christianity in you might say the negative of things that are not Christian, verse 1: says 1 Cor 5:9-13  "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother," (He calls himself a brother) "who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person."  (Notice verse 12) 12 "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?"  Paul represents that there is a standard of conduct; we go back to what we read in 1st Timothy.  There is a standard of conduct that is acceptable and there's a standard of conduct or there's conduct that is unacceptable within the church.  

So, Paul makes it very clear that it isn't all come, it isn't everyone come just as you are.  But that we, by coming, and by proclaiming ourselves to be Christian, that we have become or we are willing to become or strive for that perfection in our own lives.  I truly believe that today the term "Christian" is more a description of philosophy rather than conduct.  But I don't believe that's the way it was in Antioch or in Corinth or in the first century.  I don't believe that at all.  

It was an interesting thing that happened on this recent trip.  Thank you.  Interesting thing that happened on this recent trip.  Now it's not wasn't new by any means but we had an opportunity as we were driving from Colombo up to Newara Eliya which is we went up to Newara Eliya because this is where the Ambassador Foundation a number of years ago had a project.  They actually founded a school, I believe it's the only school that that was founded outside the U.S. or by that I mean I'm not counting Ambassador College or Imperial Schools but this was a school that was founded and run by Ambassador College volunteers in the 1980s.  
    
So, we were driving up there and we drove through a place called Kandy Sri Lanka.  It's a fairly large city about half way up to Newara Eliya.  And, the most famous place in Kandy is a Buddhist temple and it's quite well known.  In fact, it's one of the most recognizable and the most sacred sites for Buddhists in the whole world. Now, India is primarily Hindu, 82% Hindu which means there are a billion people that practice Hinduism or profess to be Hindu in India.  A Billion people in India.  But Sri Lanka Buddhism is quite large, I think more so than Hinduism.  

So, we decided to stop off and you know see this it was more of a tourist attraction, lot of tourists were there, a lined up to go into this Buddhist temple or at least a part of it to see to see what it was. Inside the temple they have a glass case and inside this glass case they have a gold coffin, little coffin.  And, you go in there and they tell you right away, well this isn't the real one.  We hide the real one down below.  

But inside this coffin there's the tooth; so this temple is called, "the temple of the sacred tooth."  Now you probably won't be shocked to know that supposedly this is a tooth from Buddha.  Which dates back thousands of years now.  So this is Buddha's, one of his teeth that's here; it's the only place in the world, as far as I know, that they have such a relic of Buddha. And thousands upon thousands of Buddhists come there sort of like Muslims going to Mecca come there to this the shrine or the temple of the sacred tooth.  

And I also discovered on this trip although I probably read it before that Hindus have three hundred and thirty million gods that they worship; three hundred and thirty million gods.  Of course Buddhists worship Buddha and this relic of Buddha.  Now keep that picture in mind and on our way down to from India to Sri Lanka we had a stop over in Chennai.  

Now the interesting thing about Chennai is Chennai, India used to be called Madras, India the name was changed a few years ago.  The most significant thing about Madras is that legends say this is where the apostle Thomas went and where he was killed.  Supposedly Thomas came to India and there does seem to be enough evidence, historical evidence that Thomas probably did go to India. But he supposedly came to this part of India and he came there in 52 A.D.   Twenty years later in 72 A.D. he was killed in this area.  

So now there's a church that's built over the site where supposedly actually wasn't where he was killed but where Thomas was trapped in a cave.  And the Hindus were very much after Thomas to kill him.  He'd been preaching the gospel in that area.  So they trapped him in a cave and there's a cave underneath this church that you can go and look into and this is supposedly where Thomas was trapped.  And there's a little opening in the top of the cave where supposedly he got away from them and ran to a nearby hill where he was then run through with a spear and Thomas was killed.  

Well, they built a church there, the church was built I think in the 1300s or something.  And, inside this church here's another glass case, here's another little golden coffin inside it and supposedly a bone from the shoulder of Thomas is enclosed in this little glass little golden coffin.  Now it struck me here I've seen Hindu, I've seen Buddhist and I've seen what's called Christianity and it's all very similar.  All three are built upon some form of idolatry.  Now when you think about it, there's a common spirit and a common thread through all of these.  

The Christianity today as it's referred to is not the Christianity of the New Testament church.  I believe we all understand that.  But do we really understand that the Christian religion the false religion that developed was nothing more nothing less than another pagan religion that happened to call upon Christ?  That worshipped for hundreds of years relics, bones and fragments from human beings.  

And to this very day the three most significant churches built in Roman Catholicism St, Paul, St. Peters and they claim St. Thomas are the only three that have that actually have a relic a piece of bone or something from one of these apostles.  How different is that than Buddhism that takes a tooth of Buddha and worships it?  There is a common thread, and I think we would agree there's a common spirit, in all pagan religion including what has become known as Christianity and it is idolatry. It's absolutely incredible and amazing when you see them side-by-side.

The word "church" in the Bible is used in two basic senses.  You find in Matthew 16 verse 18 and 1st Corinthians 12 verse 28 that church applies in a general sense.  You know it's speaking it in general.  But then we also have many references in scripture to the church in a specific sense; that is in a church in a city or a church in a province or a you know a church in a city or a province: Romans 16:1 I'm sorry Romans 1:6, 1st Corinthians 1verse 2 and so on.  So we see that the church, the body of Christ is referred to in both ways.  

In order for the church to be the true Church of God there are certain things that must exist.  One of course is a reference obviously, not just a reference, but a following after the example of Jesus Christ; living life as Jesus Christ lived it.  There are several statements that we should take note of: "Christ is the head of the church," that's found in Colossians 1,   (Col 1:18 And He is the head of the body, the church,) we're told that Christ is glorified in the church -Ephesians 3:21 (Ephesians 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.)   We're told that it's Jesus Christ who nourishes the church Ephesians 5 verse 29  (Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.)  And we're told that it is Jesus Christ who washes the church; so in order to be the Church of God we to begin to build our model.  

Our model must have a central focus obviously on Jesus Christ not in the sense of the world and the way it's approached there.  But in the sense He's truly the head of the church, that He is to be glorified in the church, that He nourishes the church and that He washes the church.  And, of course, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we have our sins forgiven.  

But there's another step to our model, let's go to Galatians, chapter 6 verse 10.  My purpose is to build that model to make it as clear as I possibly can in in one sermon what the church is, what the church should be and how we've gotten to where we are today and hopefully a little bit of how we're going to go forward.  Galatians, chapter 6 and the 10th verse; Galatians 6 verse 10.  Says, Gal 6:10 "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those"  (notice this) "who are of the household of faith."  

Now again we begin to put a few things together.  Christ said would He find faith? Would He find anyone with faith?  When He returns, where should that faith be, where should those individuals be but a part of the Church of God.  

But notice the unusual term "household."  This term is translated a little differently in different verses but you'll see a commonality here.  The word "household" is from the Greek word "oikeios" "oikeios".  It means to belong to a house or a family.  Belonging to one's household or related by blood.   In writing to the Galatians the apostle Paul was very clear that the church was to be a family.  It was the family of faith.  It was the inhabitants of quote, a "house" all related through faith.  So now we have a picture of the church, that it's not just a group of "called-out ones" who get together every Sabbath, walk away from that Sabbath service, come back again the next week, no connection, no real no real connection among those who were there.  Paul describes the church very differently as a "family" that does come together every Sabbath and does relate to one another.  That's related quote "by blood" but in this case related by spirit or by faith.  

Notice Ephesians 2 verse 19, just a few pages over; we have a similar statement: Eph 2:19 "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens" (the Bible is clear about our citizenship being in heaven or in the Kingdom of God not in this world, "fellow citizens with the saints and members" (again) "of the household" (not of faith this time but) "of God," And the same Greek word is Oikeios and it means "family."  It means "those who live in one house."  There's a commonality there's a relationship here.  

So the church just isn't a group of people who come together, make no connection, go back to their homes, come back later and over a period of time have no real connection within themselves.  The church was established no doubt in part in order for us to develop a human relationship with those of the same faith.  That there is to be a connection; there is to be an interlocking.  Hebrews, chapter 2, verse 10 says that; (Heb 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory,) there are to be many sons brought to glory.  So we have again this concept of a family, sons and daughters, of course and that spells or that intimates a "family."  Ephesians 3 talks about the entire family in heaven and earth ( Eph 3:15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,)     having a common name.  And then, of course, we read 1st Timothy 3 before in which we are to know how to conduct ourselves in the Church of God, in the household of God.  Again the Greek word means one means a family or a home.  So begin to see a little bit more about the church.

Now let's go back to Acts, chapter 2. And I want to take to just one verse here but I think this verse says a lot to us today for building a model of the church here in 2014.  We began with a calling that comes from God; we then go to the concept of Christian and how we live our life.  We then look at the concept of Jesus Christ, where does He fit in this church and then we look at the concept of where we all fit in this church as part of a family. You begin to see what the model should be.  You begin to see what the model really is from scripture of the Church of God.  It's a little bit more multi-leveled or multi-layered I should say than just saying, well, this is the church.  Do we understand fully what we mean when we use that term?  Do we grasp the fullness of that concept?  Going from God's calling to Christianity to a family to Jesus Christ and His position?  

We begin to see quite a picture of the church today as well as the church of 31 A.D. Acts, chapter 2 of course the apostle Peter gives this sermon on Pentecost, three thousand people are baptized; we mark this as the official beginning, the Holy Spirit entering in and the official beginning of the New Testament Church or the Church of this particular time.  

Acts, chapter 2, I want you to notice verse 42.  I believe and I submit to you this afternoon that verse 42 describes the church shortly after Pentecost and it also should describe to some degree the church of today, 2014.  What was it like?  Verse 42 3,000 have been baptized in verse 41, verse 42 Acts 2:42 "And they" (referring to these individuals who were baptized formed the church) "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers."  I submit to you there are four characteristics outlined here that were dominate in this church.  And that this church represented as well as we could ever imagine what the Church of God should be like. 

It is in its first flush, it is in its first beginning.  It is exciting, it is thrilling and it occupies their moments, their time, their thinking, their everything was occupied at this time.  What were they like though?  They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and in prayers.  Four concepts that were dominate in that church; my point, of course, that I'm coming to is to analyze these concepts and to see if they exist today.  And if they don't, why do they not?  And how do we recapture them?  How do we focus our attention on these areas of the church?  

The first area mentioned was the apostle's doctrine.  Now that simply means it was what was being taught by the apostles, it doesn't mean that this was a different doctrine than the one that Christ brought or a different doctrine from what we see in scripture.  It was taught to them by the apostles.  One of the central issues in the Church of God has always been and should always be: are we teaching doctrine correctly?  Are we sound in doctrine?  It is an ongoing for every issue, every age of the church from 31 A.D. all the way up through the time when Christ returns.  

The time leading up to the return of Christ we're told there will be many deceivers; there'll be much deception.  Ephesians 4 is very clear in warning the church not to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine. (Eph 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,)  Why would we say that if it wasn't true that there are always going to be crafty arguments out there that will try to dissuade you from what you committed to, what you've been steadfast about?  

You know it's interesting the word "steadfast" is an interesting word.  It means continuing and being immovable; continuing and being immovable.  That's steadfast.  When it comes to doctrine, we should be immovable.  It doesn't mean we can't learn things.  Doesn't mean there can't be corrections; but we should be very careful.  

So, if you're building a model of the Church of God for 2014, you would look for a church that cares about doctrine.  You want to find a church that it's important.  It isn't just all take as you see it, well, you know Sunday's as good as Saturday, Easter's as good as Passover.  I mean obviously those are bizarre, very far out compared to where we are in our beliefs, but there are other things that come along.  There are prophets that come along.  

Even in the Old Testament a prophet was to be identified, it says if a man comes along and he tells you something and it actually comes to pass; he says, check him out.  Does he teach the law of God?  If he doesn't, you reject him!  I don't care if every single thing he says comes to pass; if he doesn't teach God's law.  So, that tells us that doctrine should supercede these prophetic ideas that some come along with. 

 If they don't teach consistent with God's word, it doesn't matter what their prophecies what happens with their prophecy.  Because you see whether prophecy comes to pass or not is a significant matter but it's a different matter.  If you are not sound in doctrine, then this this doesn't matter at all.  Because you see you've got to be sound in doctrine. 

 Look at 2nd John, chapter 1, 2nd John, chapter 1 and verse 9, well, verse 9 and of 2nd John says  2 John 1:9 "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ" (Notice how specific John was, whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ) "does not have God."  Sometimes we ourselves get sort of allowed to take a real broad understanding of the word Christian.  John took a very narrow approach to it.  He said, "Who ever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." "He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."  

If we ever thought that doctrine wasn't important or that maybe the doctrinal wars ended in the 1990s, I believe we're wrong.  I believe doctrine always must be significant and important for the Church of God, the model for 2014.  

Notice the second statement back in Acts 2 verse 42 they were also steadfast in fellowship.  
(Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship,) 
Now if you read the phrase properly it says "the apostles' doctrines and fellowship."  You could read that as though you're talking about the fellowship with the apostles and that's also a good thing.  But the leadership of the church, the ministry in the church should always be in fellowship with all of the membership as well.   It isn't some sort of exclusive club or position; you are a member of the church.  You fellowship within the church, you make relationships within the church, you build friendships within the church.  That it is a common calling that we all have and that we're all participating in.  So one of the hallmarks of the church of 31 A.D. was fellowship, fellowship.  

Ephesians 5 verse 11, we're told to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. (Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.)  We should, our fellowship, our spiritual fellowship should be with those that God has also called. We're in 1st, we're in 2nd John, let's go back to 1st John. chapter 1.  John also was very specific about this, verse 6.  1 John 1:6-7 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." Fellowship. 7 "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin."   

The word fellowship here is translated from the Greek word koinoni, actually koinonia – 
koinonia.  And it means a bit more than just talking to people.  It means intimacy but it has a broader meaning than that.  It has to do with watching out for each other.  It's also translated when you gave a contribution, It's called koinonia, koinonia.  You've given a contribution.  By giving a contribution, you're either by helping someone or even a financial contribution as was referred to earlier, or that Paul referred to earlier in the offering that was collected for those in the famine around Judea or in Judea.  That he referred to it as koinonia.  That is it is a relationship, it's not just fellowship, it's a relationship.  It isn't someone that you just talk to briefly; it's someone that you fellowship with.  That was a strong characteristic of the church in 31 A.D.  

The third one:  back to (Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread,) is breaking bread.  Breaking bread.  Now Robertson in his book says, “That this is not a reference to a religious service, it's not a reference to the Lord's Supper.  It is a reference to what families do in the church; they eat together."  It's amazing, you look at the history of the church and you find out that the most common thing that we do as a group of people is we eat together.  And that was one of the hallmarks of the church of 31 A.D. They went from house to house it said breaking bread eating together as one of the primary characteristics of that group.

And then, of course, the fourth one: steadfast in prayers, they prayed for one another.  Paul says in Romans 1 to the Romans he says, basically a day doesn't go by that I don't mention you by name in my prayers.  So you begin to see that the characteristics of this church of 31 A.D. it becomes a model or a template for the church today.  

Steadfast in doctrine, steadfast in fellowship that is continuing always, steadfast in breaking bread, steadfast in prayers; that's a pretty good model for what the church should be like; what we should be like.  The word steadfast again means firmly fixed in place, immovable, not subject to change, firm in belief, determination or adherence.  In Greek the word is most often translated continue or continuing.  

This isn't something that should have ended in the New Testament church.  It is these are things that should always be in the church.  They should be the highlights; they should be the characteristics that we see, if we make a model of 2014.  

The model of 2014 is somewhat different probably than 1994-1995 depending on your experience in the church.  But that model should be strong.  It's made up of people who've been called by God, the Father, specifically called by Him.  It's made up of people who take on the title of Christian because they strive to follow Jesus Christ.  It's made up of people who form a family, an assembly, together of family; a household.  We are a household; we are the house of God, the household of faith.  We must be those things.  

And it's a body of people who are steadfast in doctrine, steadfast in fellowship, steadfast in breaking bread, and steadfast in prayers.  This is how we identify the Church of God.  But the name means nothing unless we reflect this body of people or that this body of people reflects this way of life.  It has a common spirit and a common faith.  The very name "church" implies an assembly of people. 

 I don't think anybody doubts for a moment that we have a difficult time ahead of us.  Satan wants us to fail in a big way; Satan wants you to fail in a big way.  The church, the body of Christ, is an island in a world of darkness; a light that is separate and stands out because of its conduct.  Can we survive?  Will Christ find faith when he returns to this earth?  Or put another way, will He find any faithful members when He returns?  Time is slipping away; we are all responsible to a degree for the state of the church.  If we are steadfast in doctrine, fellowship, breaking bread and prayers, then the church will become what it should be, the body of Christ.  A group of people who follow this way of life, a common way of life.  What we say and what we do defines who we are.  We can only be the Church of God, the REAL Church of God if our thoughts, our words and our deeds reflect Jesus Christ.  

My purpose today was to simply get to this and that is to ask:  How are we doing?  Or better put, how are you doing?  The answer to that question is very important.  Time is passing quickly.  We aren't going to change the world but we can change ourselves and truly represent Jesus Christ as the Church of the living God.  Christ isn't looking for faith in the world when He comes.  But, will He find faith among us?  Will we still be faithful when that day arrives either the day of our death or the day of Christ return, whichever comes first?  We should be; we should be.  We are the church, if we do the things that God said the church would be doing.  We are the church if we represent the things that God said the church would be.  The Bible defines who we should be.  We define who we are.