THE CHURCH GROWTH MYTH

In his new and provocative book “This Little Church Went to Market”, the author Gary E. Gilley dispels the church-growth myth when he states:

“Most churches in America are small. Fifty percent of churches average fewer than 75 attendees on any given Sunday and only 5 percent attract more than 350 according to Barna’s surveys. These statistics are not denied: it’s their interpretation that is in question. Church growth gurus use these figures to prove that the church has lost its edge - she is not making a significant impact on society. But is this the case? David Wells shares his thoughts, “A century ago, in 1890…the average Protestant church had only 91.5 members, not all of whom would have been in attendance on any given Sunday; a century before that, in 1776, the average Methodist congregation had 75.7 members. It seems to be the case that our churches today are about the same size as they have always been, on average, and the supposition that we are now experiencing drastic shrinkage needs to be clearly justified before it can be allowed to become the premise for new and radical strategies” (God in the Wasteland, by David Wells, p. 78). As a matter of fact, church attendance in 1937 averaged 41% of the population, whereas it was 42% in 1988, (close to 50% in the late 50s and 43% in 1999 according to Christianity Today, July 10, 2000, p. 20), leading Wells to comment, “Barna’s efforts to make megachurches the benchmark of normality and then to argue that churches of conventional size are failures is simply unwarranted and wrongheaded” (God in the Wasteland, p. 79). It doesn’t take a mathematician to realize that if the percentage of Americans going to church has remained constant, yet megachurches are popping up almost weekly, then the giant churches are largely being populated by folks funneling in from small churches. Just as Wal-marts are killing mom and pop department stores, chain restaurants and roceries are doing the same in their respected venues, and the Mall has demolished “downtown,” so the megachurches are doing a number on the small church. But large does not necessarily mean better, and when all the numbers are tallied, overall church attendance (on a percentage basis) is not increasing despite the methods championed by these megachurches.”

The question for us is, what will it take for our fellowship of Christian churches and Churches of Christ to wake up to the fact that the CGM is a fraud, a sham, a hoax, etc?

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

Answers

Phil;

I found your article interesting. If in fact the percentage of americans going to church remains constant, it means we are doing very little to evangelize.

If small churches are funneling people into the megachurches, what does it say? To me it says that smaller churches are small for a reason, they don't get the job done. The reasons matter not. Small churches are small for a reason (see Schaller's book, The Ingrown Church).

It seems to me Phil, that you are saying that anything a person does to try to plant and water seed, is part of, as you call it, the CGM (sham, hoax, etc.). For weeks now there have been threads started that have asked YOU for your thoughts. YOu have instead offered sections of scripture, witout any commentary as to what you believe that scripture to mean, and loads of articles by many other people. As Clara Peller used to cry: "Where's the beef?" Where are your own original thoughts.

How do you see Planting and watering seed? We know that God says he provides the growth. But what does it mean to plant and water. You lead me to believe that anyone trying to be creative to help the church become strong numerically is somehow anti-god or anti-Christ, or at the least heretical. I can see that preaching the gospel is planting the seed. But what is watering from your point of view?

Finally do we glory that the number of americans in worship is constant or do we get concerned that though figures never lie, liars figure. It is a lie to accept the numbers as stated. In the 43%, how many are morman, adventist, christadelphians, etc? They often are lumped in. So in effect, wherein during the 1700"s and 1800's they did not have the cults like we do, their percentage is much higher. Therefore, what do we do with the little church that is dying. WE have 3 Christian Churches in Baton Rouge, LA. We had 4, the strongest died (an apparent suicide), we have one on death's door, another is already dead and doesn't know it. Only one is showing signs of life. So what do I do in a metro area of 350,000. Just preach every Sunday and wish and hope and pray that people will come? I can pray for people to come, but will they stay if they see the church has nothing for them. Remember we were called to minister, you know the cup of cold water, the good samaritan? IF we minister not, we are doomed. So please Phil, lets hear your thoughts and importantly your solutions.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

Bill,

This is an entirely new thread. We will deal with the subject at hand, OK?

Theological liberals are to the church what political liberals are to America. While the latter stand in the streets of Baghdad make such traitorous statements like "Bush would go so far as to lie to the American public about the need for war against Iraq in order to boost his popularity in polls in an election year" (or something to that effect), theological liberals in the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ make self-defeating statements like this one:

"...to claim that we are a 'Bible-believing' church is confusing at best and meaningless at worst." "The Bible is a precious gift from God. It is a rich depository of truth.I read it, study it, interpret it, and apply it, but I do not 'believe' it. What I do believe in is Christ, to whom the scriptures testify." - (from a recent published statement from a preacher on one our California churches).

Notice the mega-shift from the idea that the Bible contains all truth to the "Bible contains truth". Now, this is an individual that is a firm believer in the WCA brand of Church Growthism. If this is what it takes to become a Church Growth aficionado, I'd rather be among Noah's "crowd". After all, Jesus did say that the latter days would be like in the days of Noah, did he not?

Your statement "I found your article interesting. If in fact the percentage of Americans going to church remains constant, it means we are doing verylittle to evangelize" is the accurate interpretation. All the other stuff is pure CGM rhetoric. If you want a growth model to follow (as if we actually need a model other than what is clearly stated in Scripture) take Jeff Faul. By the way, if you have a chance to go to the CRA's symposium on the Holy Spirit on October 25 & 26 in Cincinnati, Jeff will be teaching on how to grow a church without compromise. WILL YOU BE THERE?

So you want an original thought... Well, the truth is that only God has original thoughts - all we do is take the raw material and reshape it into new forms. The problem with churches today is that we want our ears to be tickled by "innovative thinking" and every new wind of doctrine, but rarely do we actually take the time to discern truth from error. That is what has gotten us into the trouble we are in now. I don't know about Barna's figures, but I do know that this statement is false: "the little church that is dying". How then do you explain the sudden explosion of the house church movement? As a matter of fact one of their key elements is "smallness". If anything, the house church movement is the most eloquent indictment of the CGM. If you want to know why, just one of their leaders.

Small TRADITIONAL churches may be "dying"(more like swallowed up by mega-churches), but the smaller local indigenous church is very much alive. According to some sources, 90% of all churches in the U.S. number less than 100 in attendance.

Less I may be misunderstood by someone, I am not against large churches per se; I just don’t find very many of them that aren’t cutting corners to get more people into the building. What I am against is the practice of compromising the truth of the Word in favor of getting a crowd.

Do we need to be relevant? AMEN!!! I believe in being relevant with the Gospel. If you knew anything about me you would know how I truly feel about innovation. I practically single-handedly introduced contemporary worship in the churches in Mexico. I cut my own record in 1978 with songs written by me with the objective of being relevant in my generation. I was falsely accused of being too “Pentecostal” when I introduced hand clapping, hand raising, and the overhead projector in worship. I am anything but “conservative” in terms of worship styles. I am against people using style as a “tool” to get people into the door.

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

Phil;

I appreciate your response. It gave me much to think about. First I want to say, if I had the financial resources to go to Cincy for CRA symposium I would go. My first thought is that I would disagree with most CC/CofC stand on the Holy Spirit, but I am open to other people teaching me (and no, I am not pentecostal, but I am not HS conservative as I was taught to be in Bible College).

Your last paragraph is intriquing to me to say the least. You gave some insight as to what you are about, but yet it is one of things that I would have thought you are against. I pictured you as Bible thumping, KJV only is holy, ultra traditionalist, it is refreshing to hear that I am wrong.

But see this is what I thought you were against in terms of Church growth. I believe that worship is for God, and we are the instrument of blessing for him. Worship, I believe is only for us to participate in. Therefore, we need to help people give God the best worship they can. Worship is a verb and is expressive of our hearts to God. Such as the Word says, we bring the sacrifice of praise to the Lord.

I too am against cutting corners and sacrificing truth just to get large numbers. But you have not, from what I have seen, espoused anything different and creative until now. To say that you are for inovation is a shock to me in light of how I have taken all that you have posted.

So let us agree, can we say that inovation as long as it does not compromise the Word is a good thing? And as long as we do not compromise the Word, we can do whatever it takes, to make disciples? And does it also mean we will serve a cup of cold water in his name or help the less fortunate neighbor as we cross their path as part of ministry?

Finally I will say, that I agree with you that small churches are not dying as whole. It is that they have not been all things to all people. Many are what they were 30-40+ years ago. Its the little church in the little building, in the middle of a neighborhood that has changed, and they are no longer salt and light for them. Those types of churches are dying, yea some are dead and don't know it. I believe in the house church ministry model. In that sense, I think the small church is alive and dynamic.

So also are you saying that the church growth model of the NT is the house church (the oikos principle)? The thing is mega churches have been built on the principle. I only wonder why we don't have many like that?

-- Anonymous, October 04, 2002

I don’t have the financial resources either, but this is one event I don’t intend to miss. I trusted God and He did provide. Therefore, I believe that it is His will that I go. Maybe you need to ask the Lord for direction in making a final decision – just a suggestion. Regarding the teaching on the Holy Spirit in the Restoration Movement, there seems to be two opposing streams of thought historically. Most conservatives today believe that the baptism in the Spirit was a once-and-for-all endowment bestowed exclusively on the apostles, namely the twelve with the exception of Paul. Like the Pentecostals, conservatives make the key mistake of equating the baptism of the Spirit with apostolic powers, spiritual gifts, or miraculous manifestations. Since it is quite obvious (at least to me anyway) that these special gifts were never meant to be permanent, they conclude than that the baptism in the Spirit must have been limited to the apostles and those they laid there hands on. This view was espoused first by J. W. McGarvey and it has become the prevailing view among our conservative brethren. It most certainly was not the view held by Campbell or Scott. Both Richardson and Milligan attempted to dissuade McGarvey from this flawed interpretation, but it seems the McGarvey’s stubbornness won the day. All that I read in Scripture regarding the work of the Holy Spirit has led me to conclude the following: 1. The baptism in the Holy Spirit was promised to all who are “born again of the water and the Spirit”, that it is received by faith in the “one baptism” along with our forgiveness of sins, and that it is not necessarily linked to supernatural manifestations or spiritual gifts. 2. While there is an exception to the above statement (the house of Cornelius, and the), this exception confirms the rule because it occurred under highly unusual circumstances. God was forcing Peter and the Christian Jews to finally accept the gentile nations into the church. Yet, Peter insisted that they be baptized immediately. Why would he do that if the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not normally given at baptism? 3. All agree that Paul received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But, when exactly did he receive it? It certainly wasn’t on the road to Damascus or during his three-day fast. It had to have been when he rose to be baptized for the remission of sins. Did he speak in tongues? No! Did he prophesy? No! Well, how do we know that he was baptized in the Spirit? Because he received this indwelling gift the same way you and I receive it today – at conversion in baptism. 4. Apostolic gifts (e.g. miracles, tongues, prophecy, healings, discernment of spirits, etc.) were always bestowed by God through the laying on of hands of the apostles for the confirmation and edification of the local church, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PERFECT New Testament cannon. Unless we are in a position to argue for the continuation of the gift of apostleship all through the church age, we must admit that the gifts that they bestowed upon the early church were only meant to be a temporary (and even incomplete) revelation. Since it is quite simple to prove that there are not true apostles in this day in age, than I must come to the obvious conclusion already stated above. 5. Am I opposed to the genuine manifestations of the Spirit? NOT AT ALL. God is totally sovereign and He can do whatever he wants. But by the same token, Satan is also real and he is in the business of faking signs and wonders in order to lead all men astray. I it is my solemn duty as a minister of the Gospel to decry the devils tactics wherever I see them, and that most certainly includes the church. One perfect example of what I am saying is the modern-day “tongues” speakers. I ought to know for I was one of them. I was an insider for a period of about three years. However, I will leave that story for another day. 6. Like you, I strongly disagree with my conservative brethren on their particular view regarding the baptism in the Spirit. However, I fully agree with teaching on the indwelling gift of the Spirit. DeWelt did an excellent job in describing that aspect of the Spirit’s work in the life of the believer. 7. At critical times in my life, I have received what I felt was a special guidance of the Spirit. I wish I had the time to share those experiences with you. Nevertheless, the experiences always lead me back to the Bible, our only truly objective source of divine revelation. I am glad that you are finally catching on to the fact that you had me all wrong. You are the first to do so. Let me add that I lead in worship and often use both the old tried and true hymns and the newer choruses (as long as they are true to the Word). To clarify, I have mixed emotions about the house church movement. The core concept is sound, but in practice too many of them are virtually acting as recruiting agents for what Peter Wagner has called “The New Apostolic Reformation”. House churches are not immune to all of the same heresies that afflict the ecclesiastic mainline establishment.

-- Anonymous, October 07, 2002

Though this thread is moving beyond the scope of the topic, I like our discussion about the Holy Spirit.

My view of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is that it and not the gifts was a first century phenomenon. God poured out the Holy Spirit with a special dispensation for establishing the church with miracles and signs and wonders. We are no where commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit comes at Immersion.

The Holy Spirit has many works among us. Namely, to comfort, to convict the sinner of sin, and the Believer of righteousness, to be our seal, to interpret our prayers with his groans, to produce fruit in our lives and to give gifts. I believe that all the gifts are available as the Holy Spirit deems. To say that so called "sign gifts" are gone I believe is false teaching.

When reading 1 Cor. 13, I had always been taught that the perfect was the completed scripture. But that I believe is not a proper exegesis. There are two issues, in my mind, against it being the completed NT. First, the passage says WE will know, even as we are known. HOw can the Word, know us? Second, the passage is about love, where did the concept of the Word get introduced. Completed love, it has been suggested is either Christ, or heaven. I personally believe it is heaven. At that time, all gifts will no longer be needed as we are now at home with God.

But now, we still need gifts to build up the church. When it comes to sign gifts, they have to be used according to the Word. Therefore, I cannot see the use of tongues in a congregation wherein both, the speaker and the hearers understand the same language.

As an aside, I also think tongues is more an auditory gift than an oral gift. Why, because there were twelve apostles, but more than 20 different languages present on the day of pentecost. Yet they all understood the preaching. How can one person speak multiple languages at the same time? Therefore, tongues was not merely what was said by the speaker but what was heard by the hearer. Making the case all the more for Tongues to be a specific language and not ecstatic utterance. And if the Holy Spirit deems a need for this gift, who are we to say no Lord, you cant do that?

Phil when you say apostolic gifts were always by the laying on of apostles hands, I agree with you. there was some special manifestation of ministry when the apostles laid on their hands. But that is different to me, from the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives. Not to mention there are more gifts than just the "sign" gifts.

I accept that you have felt leadings from the Holy Spirit. HE is there to help us if we but call upon him. I do not doubt this.

And I agree the greatest problem with understanding the Holy Spirit and gifts has been the counterfeit work of Satan. I believe he has taken something holy and righteous and distorted it, and filled men with disenfomation. This has led to both wrongful practices and on the other extreme, a fear of practice. When we want the present of God, we should want the Holy Spirit as well as Father and Son. After all he is one God, should part of him not be allowed to be near us. Many Christians think so.

YOu speak rightly about the dangers of house churches. It is however not a different danger than what goes on many churches.

This exchange is the way I believe we Christians should express our views. And I thank you for it.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2002

to all concerning being filled with the spirit.According to the scriptures being filled with the spirit does not come at immersion read Acts 8 12-17 these had been baptized but had not yet been filled with the spirit Also in Acts 19 Paul came upon certian ones who were baptized according to Johns baptism then he asked them how they were baptized they told him and then he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ after that he laid hands on them they recieved the Holy Spirit so therfore the recieving the spirit came after baptism.Also according to what Peter spoke in acts 2:38 if we obey we even today may recieve the same promise Acts 2:39.We must obey in order to recieve Acts 5:32 he has given the Holy Ghost to all who obey if you have not obeyed you can not recieve Those diciples of John obeyed what the apostle Paul told them and they recieved it is conditional on obedidiance.Also the gifts were never taken away from the Church if we have recieved the gift of the spirit we also recieve the gifts of the spirit.I know that I will not be to popular for my next statement but nowhere in Gods word does it say that Apostles Prophets Evanglists Pastors and Teachers would be removed they were all given for the perfecting of the saints how then can the saints be perfected without them? I know there are false ones but that does not mean there are not real ones.You could not have a counterfit 20 dollar bill if you did not have a real one. Thank you Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2002

Concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit...the phrase in noun form "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is absent from Scripture. But the verbal form is present. In fact, there are seven references (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16 & 1 Corinthians 12:13).

In almost all of those references they are John the baptist speaking about the ministry of Christ which, in his mind consisted of baptizing with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now the traditional RM position is that this was a unique phenomena that had only two occurrences in the NT...Acts 2 & Acts 10. Personally, I find that a great stretch for two reasons.

1. John the baptist described Jesus' whole intent and purpose for coming to earth was this ministry of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And if the RM position is true then Jesus' whole earthly ministry was exhausted in only two occurrences.

2. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says, "For we were ALL baptized by one spirit..." Now the Greek for "by one spirit" is the word "en" and that is always consistently translated "in" or "into" in almost every other occurrence in the NT...the translators missed it here, IMO.

So in essence, I believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit still occurs every time a believer is immersed. It is an initial, not subsequent, experience with water baptism. There is only ONE baptism as Paul says. And so, IMO, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an experience of every believer in Christ when he/she receives the Holy Spirit...the precious gift we receive at baptism.

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2002

Michael I don't believe I used the term "baptized with the Holy Ghost" the term used by Paul in Acts 19 was recieved and if you will notice they most definatley did not recieve it when they were immersed but after when Paul had laid his hands on them and said "recieve ye the Holy Ghost" then and only then did they recieve it.The same goes for the ones Philip baptized in Acts 8 they were most definatley baptized prior to recieving the Holy Ghost notice I said recieve.I believe this is why the Church is not effective as it should be because we have no authority or power with out the Holy Ghost.Paul said that he did not come with enticing words with mans wisdom but in the power and demonstration of the Spirit.How can one come in the power of the Spirit without recieving the Spirit.And we must recieve it the same as the examples we find in scripture,regardless of whether or not it goes along with the RM movement.Let us lay asside our traditions recieved by man that make the word of God to no effect and do what the word of God says. Thank You Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2002

Bill,

In your post, you say:

“The Holy Spirit has many works among us. Namely, to comfort, to convict the sinner of sin, and the Believer of righteousness, to be our seal, to interpret our prayers with his groans, to produce fruit in our lives and to give gifts. I believe that all the gifts are available as the Holy Spirit deems. To say that so called "sign gifts" are gone I believe is false teaching”

Just to clarify, there is no such thing as “sign gifts” – at least that exact terminology is not found in the New Testament. The term used by Paul can be found in 2 Corinthians 12:12: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds”. So, evidently Paul had something very specific in mind when he made reference to those gifts that characterize and distinguish his apostleship. Those apostolic gifts were then transmitted to certain members of the local churches in order to provide spiritual direction in the absence of the written word. That these apostolic gifts were never meant to be permanent is further evidenced by the fact that there are no true apostles in the church today. There are plenty of false apostles (e.g. C Peter Wagner, John Wimber, Benny Hinn, etc.), but I have yet to meet a true apostle. If you say that there are apostles, then PROVE IT!

The Bible says that apostleship is a gift of the Spirit (1Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11) If all the gifts of the Spirit are available today, as you claim, then you are faced with the problem of proving that there are true apostles in the church today. That simply cannot be done because none qualify, as none have been physical eyewitnesses to the resurrection of our Lord (Acts 1:21-26). The only exception to this rule is Paul, and he stated that he was not worthy of this distinction (1Corinthians 15:9). Since I have been both inside and out of the Charismatic Movement, I can probably make the following statement more authoritatively than you can: THERE ARE NO APOSTLES IN MODERN CHRISTIANDOM. Oh, but there are plenty who make all kinds of claims to that role but ALL of them resort to either manipulation or fakery to dupe there followers into believing that they are genuine. They are quite successful at it too, I might add.

I admit that the meaning of “the perfect” in 1Corinthinas 13:10 has been submitted to much controversy. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that “teleios” (in the Greek) is in reference to the completed revelation of the new covenant. The only other possibility would be the maturity of the church. One thing is certain in my mind, it does not refer to the second coming of our Lord or to our heavenly abode, for neither of these are mentioned as subjects either. Furthermore, I do not pretend to build my case solely on the meaning of the word “perfect” in this passage. There is plenty of evidence elsewhere in the NT that strongly suggests that the apostolic gifts were never meant to be permanent.

I agree that these gifts, if they were meant to be permanent, would have to be administered according to the instructions in the NT. But that is precisely where your argument falls apart. Unless the modern day tongue-speakers, healers, prophets, et al. actually perform their gifts according to the apostolic precedent in the NT, than we have reason to question their genuineness. A 40% success rate (as in the case of the Kansas City prophets of Metro Christian Fellowship) just wont cut it! To say, “also think tongues is more an auditory gift than an oral gift” is a monumental copout. Even if it was an “auditory gift” it still holds that Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, heard them (the apostles) speak in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. In Charismatic circles today, I don’t hear anything but gibberish and mumbo jumbo, even when I was a part of it.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

OK Chuck, here is my problem with your response.

As much as we would like to make the words “filled with”, “fall upon”, and “baptized in” mean different things, that simply cannot be done and still be true to Scripture. The fact is the book of Acts uses these terms interchangeably. Read it again and see for yourself. While it is true that there exists a fullness of the Spirit that is to be sought after by Christians (Ephesians 5:18) and that is post- conversion, this is an entirely different filling from the filling mentioned in Acts. You seem to jump around all over the place trying to prove something, but I’m not sure exactly what it is you are trying to prove.

In Acts 8:12-17, it clearly states why the Spirit had not “fallen” on the Samaritan believers: “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Was their baptism defective? Is this statement in reference to the apostolic gifts bestowed on the Samaritans by the hands of the apostles? I believe that both interpretations are possible. In any case, this Samaritan incident is hardly a proof text for a post-conversion baptism in the Spirit.

In Acts 19:5-7, it says the Spirit “came on them” after Paul had laid his hands on them. Then they manifested apostolic gifts as a result. Now, does that prove that they did not receive the “baptism” or “indwelling” of the Spirit when they were re-baptized as Christ had commanded? NO! If anything, it proves that in God’s providential provision these disciples received apostolic gifts after they had been born of the Spirit in baptism.

Acts 2:39 proves my point! All believers are baptized in the Spirit as John the baptizer had promised they would be. There is only ONE baptism – a baptism with two aspects, the water and the Spirit. We are born of both when we call upon the name of the Lord in immersion.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove by citing Acts 5:32 “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” Does that mean that one can only receive the baptism in the Spirit when one has lived a perfect sinless Christian life as the Nazarenes and other holiness groups teach? I sure hope not, because none of us qualify! By obedience, Luke is referring to the obedience of the Gospel (Romans 10:16). One obeys the Gospel when one is buried with Christ in baptism, and rises with Him to a newness of life (Romans 6:3-7)

You state, “Also the gifts were never taken away from the Church”. I never said that ALL the gifts were taken away. I specifically made reference to certain group of gifts – the apostolic gifts. You say, “if we have recieved the gift of the spirit we also recieve the gifts of the spirit”. Not the apostolic gifts, you don’t. Those are only imparted by the laying on of hand of the apostles. Paul alluded to this in his letter to the Romans, chapter 1: “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles”. Why would Paul want to go to them in order to impart apostolic gifts to them if they had already received them?

Next, you approach the whole issue of modern-day apostles in a hit- ‘n’-run fashion: “I know that I will not be to popular for my next statement but nowhere in Gods word does it say that Apostles Prophets Evanglists Pastors and Teachers would be removed they were all given for the perfecting of the saints how then can the saints be perfected without them? I know there are false ones but that does not mean there are not real ones.You could not have a counterfit 20 dollar bill if you did not have a real one”. If the saints cannot be perfected without modern-day apostles and prophets, how did the church survive without them since the closing of the first century? Who were God’s true apostles in the third, fourth, and fith century, and so on? If they are present among God’s people today, who are the real ones? You must know because you seem to be sure that they are out there. How do you know that they are for real? NO Chuck! You cannot come up with any definite names because there are no true apostles in this day in age. God’s sufficient and plenary revelation was handed down to us via the apostles and prophets, and it is on that foundation (the written word) that the Church is built and perfected (Ephesians 2:20)

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

Michael,

I congratulate you for an excellent response! I couldn’t have stated it better myself.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

I do know a man personally who has wrought all the signs of an Apostle,Bill Umstetter has met him once.I told him of the mighty works of God that I personally have wittnessed.His name is Robert Kromer.He Preached in the slum areas os south Col.Ohio on the streets to the homeless drug addicts and prostitutes.He preached outside in all kind of weather missing one day in 7 years. The first time I met him he came to the Church where I went,he was a guest speaker that night.We had never met when they had prayer requests that night I told mine.After the prayer requests the service progressed as usual offering,special songs ect.Then the service was turned over to him to speak.He got up and the first thing he spoke was that he repeated my prayer reguest and told me exactly to the letter how it would be answerd the very next day it came to pass word for word as he said.I have been a eye witness to many healings of people I personally know we he laid hands on them and prayed for them always in the Name of Jesus Christ. As for his preaching when he was in Col.Ohio other ministers in the area wanted him to go with them and protest outside of the porno shops bars and strip clubs.He said "no but tell you what I will do,I'll preach the Gosple to them and get there soul saved and then they will be out of buisness for good,you can protest them they may close up shop here ,but they will just set up shop sme where else,but when you get them saved they will be out of buisness permantley" Also he once said that the Lord showed him by the spirit the name of a twn in Tenn.and told him to go there and start a Church.He took a tent set it up and began to preach 3 nights not one porson came on the 4th night people came he had been preaching to empty chairs for 3 nights he preached as if they were full the people in the town said he was crazy.But that fourth night the people started to come they put there money together bought the empty lot wher the tent sat and built a Church that is still going on. As far as the doctrine, he preaches,Repentance,Baptism,by immersion In the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and living the life plaesing to the Lord after we are saved.He once had a lesbian come up to him while preaching on a street corner on the south end of Col.OH and ask "what does your God think of lesbians?" he replied "he loves them" she said "good tell the people that" he said "wait there is more he loved them enough to die on an old rugged cross so you dont have to live this kind of life" with that she spit in his face and cussed him.I went with him to pass out fliers in Newark OH to let people know about a Church in that area we,the brothers and sisters teemed up in pairs.There was one place no one would go to he said "come on Chuck they will probally want to hang us on the cross for this one" we went right smack into a bar he walked boldly in and told the patrons about the Church and invited them to come to a cook out that afternoon in the Church parking lot and we would be gladd to have them.I porsonally have never witnessed the love of our Lord Jesus shown in the manner and utmost confidence that this Bro.has. Many drunkards,prostitutes,drug dealers and just plane old sinnaers such as I was he has helped to share this wonderfull gosple with.It has cost him every thing his whole family has regected him. many of the "holier than thou churches" turned there back on him because he will go where they would "never be caught dead with those kind of people" places.As far as I am concerned I have no intentions of ever going back to a so called "Church of Christ" after what I have seen in the ones in our area.I watched my mother aunt and poeple I have known all my life in the "Church of Christ" where they go stand up one Sun. morn and tell out and out lies to get one of the ministers who is on this forum voted out.I confronted them about there lies they said they were justified to do it.So tell me,who are from the pitts of hell.I tell you the whited walls full of dead mens bones in these powerless dead dry so called churches.The ones born of the flesh have allways persacuted the ones born of the Spirit.We were told that ther would be " people who have a form of Godliness but denying the power there from such turn away" Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

Dear Chuck,

Big deal! Who is Robert Kromer? That is the question the first came to my mind when I read your post. Well, I can tell you right now that he is not a true apostle, whether he claims to be one or not. He simply does not qualify. Read Acts 1:21-26 again if you would:

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Now tell me, in view of this objective criteria how does this Mr. Kromer qualify?

1. Was he in the company of the other apostles during the entire period of Jesus’ earthly ministry? 2. Was he an eyewitness of our Lord’s baptism by John? 3. Did he witness the resurrection of Jesus first hand? 4. Was he appointed by the other apostles?

If Mr. Kromer meets none of these conditions, then he is not a true apostle but a false teacher of whom Jesus warned in Matthew 7:22-23:

“22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

The demon-possessed girl who kept following Paul and Silas everywhere they went was able to accurately identify who these two men were though they did there best to keep a lid on it (Acts 16:16-18). Did that make her and apostlette? Peter Popoff was discovered using a sophisticated hearing device through witch he received audio communication from his wife behind stage. Nevertheless, he still manages to have a following – that blows my mind out of the water! Many others use various other tricks but they are always in a highly controlled environment – that is the common denominator. You would be amazed how easy it is for an experienced con artist to fool people. Hollywood has been doing it for years.

I once prayed for a young lady who was afflicted by a huge tumor on the outside of her abdomen. She was instantly healed and more than a dozen people saw it first hand. I also prayed for my oldest son who had a birth defect in his rectum that caused excruciating pain. He was miraculously healed as well. Does that make me an apostle? NO! Answered prayer and an occasional word of knowledge from the Lord do not make apostles.

Jesus personally handpicked 13 men to be his chosen apostles, of which we have record in the NT. Paul said that he was the last of the bunch. Everyone else that makes a claim to apostleship is both a charlatan and a false prophet. We need not fear Mr. Kromer or anyone else of his kind. God is testing our hearts to see if we are willing to obey Him and His word over and above what we perceive through our senses.

Our Lord commended the Ephesian believers for submitting so-called apostles to the test of Scripture when He said to them: “2I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.” (Revelation 2:2,3) I it is only fitting that we imitate their discernment.

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

Phil according to your statement of objective criteria the Apostle Paul don't measure up.First of all he was not in the company of the other apostles,second he was not an eye witness,third he did not witness the reserection,fourth and most important he was not appointed by the other apostles. So according to your criteria as you stated concerning Robert Kromer he and Paul were false teachers and false apostles.You don't get it from man any way read Gal.1:9-20.Also Robert Kromer to my knowledge has never called himself an apostle,but many more have.I know he is not a false teacher you my freind don't even know the man.So how can you say he is a false teacher.What did I tell you about his teaching that makes you say that. By the way what are the signs of an apostle? Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 10, 2002

Chuck,

Apparently you do not read my posts. You just pick and choose whatever you feel like ranting and raving about, and gloss over everything else.

Here are Paul’s own words on his exceptional appointment as an apostle:

“3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.”

From this very passage we conclude the following:

1. Paul was the LAST (and the least) of the apostles. 2. Paul WAS a witness to the resurrection of the Lord through an exceptional post-ascension visitation. No one else has ever been called to be an apostle in this same fashion, though many have claimed such “Damascus-road” experiences. 3. Paul did not consider himself to be worthy of the call because he persecuted the church and because his was such an exceptional case. In his own words, “as of one born out of due time”.

Now, whether Mr. Kromer claimed to be an apostle or not is immaterial. You believe he was, otherwise you wouldn’t have presented him as a case study. The point is, Chuck, you want to prove that modern-day apostles exist and so you brought Mr. Kromer into the picture. Mr. Kromer may have been a great preacher, a godly man, and a sacrificial servant of the Lord – BUT HE WAS NOT AN APOSTLE AS YOU CLAIM! THAT IS THE POINT! Now, my point is that you are hard-pressed to prove your assertion from Scripture.

I did notice though that you said Mr. Kromer baptized new converts in the name of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that he baptized them in the name of Jesus only? If so, than we have a greater problem then I thought. PLEASE CLARIFY.

Answered prayers are NOT proof of apostleship. An occasional word of wisdom or knowledge is NOT proof of apostleship. As Jesus himself stated, NOT even the performance of miracles is proof of apostleship. Only a specific calling and designation on behalf of the Lord can make an apostle. THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 13 APOSTLES in Church history. Therefore, any modern claim to apostleship is spurious and dangerous, for it leads many foolhardy souls astray.

-- Anonymous, October 11, 2002

Phil I have a question was Barnabas an apostle?According to Acts 14:14 he was,so does this make him number14.If he was when did he become one.I am serious,I don't know. Also you wanted me to clarify as to how Robert Kromer baptizes.When ever one is baptized we say "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ I now baptize you for the remmision of your sins".Hope that clarifies it for you.Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 12, 2002

That Barnabas was not an Apostle, at least not in the since that we are using the term in this string, is easily deduced by the full counsel of the NT Scriptures. Let’s examine them now.

Matthew 10:2 “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; …” (the name of Barnabas does not appear in the list).

Luke 6:13 “And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; …” (the name of Barnabas is not included)

Lucas 22:14 “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him…” (no Barnabas here) Acts 1:26 “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Acts 9:27 “But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.” (clearly, Barnabas was not an apostles at this point) Galatians 1:19 “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (why didn’t he mention Barnabas as one of the apostles?) The final clincher is Revelation 21:14: “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (The name of Barnabas is not among them)

After examining these passages, how do we resolve the apparent discrepancy between these and Acts 14:14? Here is what Strong’s Lexicon has to say about it – you decide.

652 apostolos {ap-os'-tol-os}

from 649; TDNT - 1:407,67; n m

AV - apostle 78, messenger 2, he that is sent 1; 81

1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ 1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers 1b1) of Barnabas 1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2002

Phil thanks for the definition of Apostle.Did Barnabas become one in Acts 13:2? Being sent by the Holy Ghost?

-- Anonymous, October 14, 2002

The short answer is, “NO”. Nowhere in this passage is there anything that even comes close to suggesting that he was any more an apostle than Timothy or Titus, just to mention two of Paul’s close companions. Did the Holy Spirit call him to ministry alongside Paul? YES! Was he an “apostle” in the broader sense of the term – a messenger of God? YES! Could he have been a NT prophet? MAYBE, though nothing that is said of him would seem to indicate it. Barnabas was most likely called to be an evangelist to work alongside Paul in preaching the Gospel. He most certainly was not an APOSTLE in the strict sense nor was he called to be an author of Holy Scripture.

PS: I wonder if we could bring any of the other guys back on this forum to disccuss the original question!

-- Anonymous, October 15, 2002

Phil I think we had a missunderstanding in the begining.The "Apostle" I was referring to in this day and age is "one who is truly sent from God to do a work or to help set a Church in order".I have seen a lot of Churches in our area who are out of order according to the scriptures, where as if we had someone who was truly "Sent" to Reprove,Rebuke,with God given power and authority they may change.I know of a couple of Churches where a man of God came and now they are on track.It seems as though we have a good many so called "preachers" who were not ordained of God out there.But when a preacher is God called and God sent the people will hear and faith will come for "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word and how can you hear without a preacher and how can he preach except he be sent".I know we all have heard dry powerless ineffective men who claim to be preachers,but Lord give us one "sent" from you. Phil also earlier I had a bit of an attitude problem please for give my attitude.Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, October 16, 2002

Phil;

You said, refering to Barnabas: He most certainly was not an APOSTLE in the strict sense nor was he called to be an author of Holy Scripture.

First, I think you went overboard with Chuck. I think you understood his meaning the moment he shared Acts 14:14. Sometimes Phil, (and I am not trying to cut you down in any way, I am trying to give you loving counsel), you jump to conclusions and you try to put out a match with a water cannon. Try to think more of what the other person is saying. For instance, you replied to me once after I thought we were more in agreement. The first time I read what you wrote, I was a little incensed. But I gave it some time and then reread it and I now have a better understanding of what you said.

Second, do not be so sure that Barnabas was not an author of scripture. There are many who attribute the book of Hebrews to Barnabas. The style of writing I believe, eliminates Paul as the author. Just something to think about. (BTW some have even attributed it to Priscilla.)

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

Bill,

First of all, Chuck and I understand each other perfectly. What often happens is that our pre-conceived notions color our argumentation. In this case, Chuck feels that every instance where the term “apostle” is used it automatically refers to an apostle in the strictest sense of its use in the NT in connection with the 12 + 1. I demonstrated, by using Strong’s dictionary that it is possible that the use of the term “apostle” in the case of Barnabas is used merely in the general sense of “one who is sent out”. Now, if I were to send you someplace on my behalf, that would make you may apostle. By the same token, the early church in conjunction with the direction of the Holy Spirit, sent Barnabas out to accompany Paul in his journeys – in that sense, Barnabas was an apostle of the local church, an evangelist if you please. In contrast, Paul was in apostle in the specific sense because he was sent out on behalf of the Lord. He himself claimed to be the last of the bunch as I have clearly demonstrated earlier. Now, if you insist on the permanence of modern day apostles until the end of the age, then you are deceiving yourself and all those who come in contact with you who follow your deception.

Now concerning Barnabas writing Hebrews, you have absolutely no proof of that and you know it. All you are trying to do is win an argument at the expense of the integrity of the NT Scriptures. To this day, the book of Hebrews has been overwhelmingly attributed to Paul. There is a book attributed to Barnabas, however, and it is an apocryphal epistle universally rejected as spurious – as spurious and apocryphal as your modern day apostles and prophets.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

For some unknown reason, the following thread “HAS GARY E. GILLEY DEBUNKED THE CHURCH GROWTH MYTH?” was cut off without my consent. Therefore, I offer this response to Chuck about modern-day apostles. Chuck,

I don’t think there was any misunderstanding at all. Once again, by your own definition of what an apostle is, there are no contemporary apostles living in the church of Jesus Christ today, nor have there been any apostles since the death of John. To claim otherwise is to go against what is taught in NT Scripture. There have been many that claim that they are apostles or prophets of God, but they are false and apostate.

As I see it, the problem that you face is that you seem to have a need for a supreme authority figure in the church that can “set the house in order”. Secondly, you hold a very low view of Scripture. Wake up Chuck! The house was set in order nearly 2000 years ago and it is called the NEW TESTAMENT. The Holy Spirit inspired it, the first-century apostles and prophets wrote it, and it continues to be the all-sufficient word of God for our time:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” - 2Timothy 3:16,17

You may say, “but since Christians are not in agreement as to what the NT says and what the NT means, the house continues to be out of order. Therefore, it needs to be put in order by modern-day apostles and prophets”. So what else is new! Not even those who lived in Paul’s day remained faithful to the word that he had received from the Lord:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.” Acts 20:29-32

As you can see, this has been going ever since the church was first brought into existence – even when the apostles were living. It is an unavoidable condition of the human heart to distort or manipulate what God has said in order to justify our disobedience and to “draw away disciples” after us. But when Christ comes, He will put the house in order according to His word.

Chuck, your understanding of apostleship places you squarely in the camp of Roman Catholic tradition and of their claim to an unbroken chain of command going all the way back to St. Peter, who supposedly was their first pope. Other groups have made similar claims: the Mormons, the Adventists, and most recently the Manifest Sons of God, the Latter Rain Movement, the Signs and Wonders Movement, and C P Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation.

Grant it, as one who was once inside the Latter Rain for the space of three years, specifically the Restoration Movement (not the Stone- Campbell version), I can relate with your dilemma. Maybe the following word of the Lord will help get you turned in the right direction:

“And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” – Luke 22:24-27

Chuck, what we need today is not modern-day apostles and prophets who can exercise lordship over the churches. What we need is humble servant leadership capable of inspiring the flock by example and faithful teaching of God’s word.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002

Phil,

This is what I said: "Second, do not be so sure that Barnabas was not an author of scripture. There are many who attribute the book of Hebrews to Barnabas. The style of writing I believe, eliminates Paul as the author. Just something to think about. (BTW some have even attributed it to Priscilla."

NOw as for proof, little person that you are showing yourself to be, I made no statement declaring for fact that Barnabas was the author. I gave my view as to why I think Paul DID NOT write Hebrews. And I gave a very general statement, about authorship because no one has proof of who wrote the book. For you as a paulinist can't prove he wrote it. You can only take the word of other scholars and historians. I was pointing out something that maybe you missed...my opinion.

Now in my opinion, here is why I do not believe Paul wrote the book. First there is not his usual greeting. Second, there is not his usual conclusion. Third his style of writing lacks his usual authoritative tone, as in "This I say to you" and the phrases used don't seem to be of the same style as the other books we know for sure that he wrote. And before you squeal, I have no proof. I ask you to give me your proof and disprove my statements. I make no claims other than this is my opinion from what I have studied.

Finally, if I make a general statement that many accept that Barnabas wrote Hebrews. It shows you misunderstand simple english. I said may accept Barnabas, and some accept Priscila. It is illogical for you to squeal proof. For surely if I say many and some, they are out there. Now my many and some may be all wrong. But it does not change the fact that there are many who believe in Barnabas' authorship.

So get off your high horse. Just disagree. Does it matter who wrote that particular book? Its truths are still valid. Unlike the Penteteuch and other Pauline writings where we are sure of the authorship (then it matters). But the real truth is that Hebrews was given by God and penned by an unknown writer. Disprove that!

-- Anonymous, October 20, 2002