NEW TESTAMENT MEETINGS AND THE RAPID CHURCH PLANTING OF THE APOSTLES

New Testament Meetings and the Rapid Church Planting of the Apostles

One of the keys that allowed the apostles to rapidly plant churches was the way early believers conducted their meetings. The apostles left churches behind for some period of time with no appointed elders to lead them.

Imagine what would happen in many traditional churches if the government came in and arrested the pastors and other ‘official’ church leadership. What would happen to churches if the pastors were taken? This may sound like an unrealistic scenario, but it often happens in many countries. In China and Vietnam, for example, church leaders can be imprisoned. If this happened in the church you attend, would the brethren be able to have edifying church meetings by themselves, without the pastor?

I have seen church services canceled because the pastor was sick. I know of one church that shut down because the pastor moved and took a secular job to feed his family. Many people feel that in order to have a church meeting, there must be a specially called minister of the Gospel, ordained by the laying on of hands.

In Acts 14:23, we see that the churches were already churches when Paul and Barnabas appointed elders. A ‘church’ is an assembly. These believers were already assembling together as churches. They met without apostles or official ordained leadership. Yet they were still able to meet.

A careful study of the New Testament reveals fascinating information about how the early church met. When we understand how the early church met, we can understand how the apostles could leave churches for extended periods of time with no appointed elders.

What you are about to read may shock you. It may challenge some of your most fundamental beliefs about church meetings. I ask that you read this with an open mind, prayerfully searching the scriptures to determine if the things I write are true.

The Three-Point Sermon

Many seminaries teach students to preach three-point sermons. Many consider this to be the idea type of sermon. A three-point sermon is composed of an introduction, body, and conclusion. The introduction mentions the three main points of the sermon, the body expounds on the three main points, in the order in which they were introduced in the introduction. The conclusion, of course, is the end part of the sermon.

In my studies of the New Testament, I have never noticed a prophet, apostle, or the Lord Himself ever preaching a three-point sermon. There are many examples of sermons in the New Testament to examine. Paul certainly did not write letters with only three points. If the New Testament does not teach us to preach three-point sermons, and does not give us an example of any three-point sermons, where does this type of preaching come from?

The three-point sermon comes from ancient Greece. Aristotle taught the pattern for three point speeches in his Rhetoric. [Verify this and point out the year.] Hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, Athenian teachers were teaching statesmen to give three-point speeches in city meetings. Writers wrote using this same method of organization. Even today, the ability to write a three-point essay is considered to be a necessary skill for high school or college graduates.

Christianity flourished in Greece. Some of the educated Christian authors of the first centuries of Christianity were educated in philosophy, and had learned to give well-organized three-point speeches. For example, John Chrystosom, in the 300’s, was known for his ability to preach beautiful sermons.

Paul was most likely not a trained public speaker:
II Corinthians 11:6 But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.

Paul was probably a powerful speaker in a way. He had a lot of knowledge, and probably spoke with much further. He was educated and had rabbinical training. But he may not have had the type of Greek educated given to public speakers-the type of training philosophers had. If Paul’s writing style and sample sermons from Acts are any indication, it is unlikely that Paul preached three-point sermons. While a three-point sermon may be a legitimate means of communicating a message, the Bible gives us no reason to consider the three-point sermon to be the ideal means of teaching in church meetings.

Sermon as Central Part of the Church Meeting

Sermons were preached in churches long before the Reformation. But it was after the Reformation that, in many types of churches, the one Sunday sermon came to be viewed as the central focus of the church meeting. For centuries before the Reformation the most important aspect of the church meeting was considered to be partaking of Holy Communion. In Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and certain traditional Protestant churches, Holy Communion still holds this central place.

Why was Holy Communion considered to be so important? Think about it. Where did the custom come from? Christ Himself instituted Holy Communion. Of all the things we do in our church meetings, Holy Communion stands out as the one unique practice that Jesus Christ Himself instructed His disciples to do.

That is not to say that Bible teaching is not important. It is clear from the New Testament scriptures that hearing and learning the word of God is essential. But we need to realize that the way in which the word is taught in church has evolved over time. When Martin Luther nailed the 95 thesis on the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, there was great ignorance in the churches. Masses were conducted in Latin which most of his fellow Germans could not understand. Many had little idea of what the Bible, read in Latin, said.

Martin Luther emphasized expounding on the scriptures in sermons. He translated the New Testament into German for his fellow countrymen to read. Yet, Luther still emphasized the importance of Holy Communion. In Roman Catholic Churches, and many Lutheran churches, the pulpit is toward the left of the sanctuary and there is an altar front and center for distribution of Holy Communion. The arrangement of the furnishings indicates the theoretical central importance of Holy Communion in such churches. Now, ironically, some Protestant churches in Indonesia have pulpits on the left and altars in the middle, but rarely celebrate Holy Communion.

Later Reformers after Luther took the pulpit and placed it front and center in the congregation, where it still stands in many congregations today. In many churches since the Reformation, the central focus of the whole meetings is a long sermon given by one leader.

There are many kinds of sermons. This sermon may be a three-point sermon. It may be a verse-by-verse exposition of a passage. Some sermons are just a preacher standing in front of a congregation, reading a few verses, and then spouting out a few of his own unrelated ideas. But in almost every church that came out of the Reformation, there is a sermon every Sunday morning, and the congregation generally considers the high point of the meeting.

What is the Biblical evidence for the Sunday sermon? Acts records long sermons by Peter, Stephen, and Paul-- Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount and gave other extended teachings. But this was before ‘regular church meetings’ began after Pentecost. Peter preached a sermon on Pentecost, and Paul preached sermons in synagogues and other public places, but these were evangelistic in nature, rather than messages given in gatherings of believers for the edification of the saints. Where is the evidence for the Sunday sermon in scripture?

The closest thing to a piece of scriptural evidence for a Sunday sermon preached in church is found in Acts 20:6-7.

6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

In the passage, the word for ‘teach’ [berbicera dengan] means that Paul was talking with the saints. It is likely that he had an interactive discussion with the saints until midnight. Paul probably had a dominant speaking role in that particular meeting on this particular occasion because he was leaving the next day, and the church needed to get as much knowledge out of him as they could before he left.

What other evidence is there in scripture for the Sunday sermon? I am not able to find a good scriptural example of the custom of going to church to hear a monologue from one man week after week. Church meetings are the right place for Christians to learn and study the word of God. Teaching should be a part of such meetings. But this teaching need not take the form of only one church leader giving a three-point sermon. The Lord may gift a church with many teachers. The early church allowed more than one speaker per meeting. Believers can also learn by hearing a passage of scripture read, and discussing it with others. We should expect that the saints would be more blessed by the gifts of many in a meeting than they would by the gifts of one.

Evidence for Mutually Edifying Meetings

Hebrews 10 contains a verse often quoted by preachers to encourage the members of the congregation to come to church. Let us take a look at Hebrews 10:24-25

Hebrews 10:24-25
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Notice the context provided by verse 24. Believers are to provoke one another to love and to good works. I have often heard verse 25 used in exhortations to attend church meetings, but it seems like few people pay attention to the whole verse. The verse commands not to forsake assembling together, but to exhort one another.

How many of us obey this verse? Many of us do not forsake assembling together, but when we assemble, we receive exhortation. But here Hebrews 10:25 instructs believers to assemble and to exhort one another.

Do any other passages of scripture teach us that meetings are supposed to involve mutual edification? In fact, the longest chapter that gives the most detailed instructions in regard to church meetings tells how to have mutually edifying meetings.

I Corinthians 14 was written to correct excesses among the Corinthians. Apparently, many of the Corinthians were either standing all at once and speaking in tongues without interpretation in the meeting, or else standing one by one and speaking in tongues with no interpretation. In this chapter, Paul explains that messages in tongues without interpretation do not edify the assembly. Paul contrasts tongues with prophecy, which edifies the church.

Something very interesting to notice about I Corinthians 14 is that Paul does not correct the Corinthians disorderly behavior by telling them to sit silently and listen to a preacher preach a sermon. In fact, we see that the Corinthians were not in the habit of hearing on man preach a sermon.

I Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Here we see that ‘every one of you’ had something to share in the meeting. Paul does not address the issue of a meeting in which only one man teaches, but a meeting in which the various members of the body of Christ use their gifts to edify the whole assembly. Paul’s solution for the Corinthian’s problems is not limiting the number of speakers to one man, but rather allowing the Corinthians to express their gifts in an orderly manner.

I Corinthians 14 has to be taken in the context of the whole epistle. In I Corinthians 12, Paul lists various gifts of the Spirit, and explains that we all the members of the body of Christ have different gifts, and we all need one another. Chapter 13 explains the importance of love in relation to the gifts of the spirit. Chapter 14 then explains how the gifts of the Spirit are to be used by the members of the body of Christ to edify one another. The place for the exercise of gifts of the Spirit to build up the body of Christ is in church meetings.

In I Corinthians 14, we see that Paul was very positive about the idea of all prophesying in a church meeting. In verses 24 through 25, Paul presents a scenario demonstrating something positive that could happen if everyone in the church meeting prophesied. In verse 31, Paul writes, “For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” In verses 33 and 36 Paul indicates that what taught about church meetings was the practice of the other churches and that the Corinthians did not have the right to altar these practices. In verse 37, Paul explains that his instructions for church meetings were the commandments of the Lord.

Other Scriptural Evidence of Gifts in the Churches

Romans 12:4-8 teaches believers to use their gifts to edify one another. The passage instructs those with the gift of prophecy to prophesy according to the proportion of faith. Those with the gift of teaching are to teach. Those with the gift of exhortation are to teach. Why would Paul have given such instructions if there were no opportunity for the saints to use these gifts to edify one another in their meetings?

Consider Peter’s instructions:
1 Peter 4:10-11
10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

A steward is one entrusted to take care of someone else’s property. Christians are stewards of God’s grace. If God gives us spiritual gifts, we must be responsible to use them properly. Verse 11 mentions ‘speaking.’ Those who have speaking gifts like prophecy or teaching, must use those gifts to edify others.

From these passages, we can see that God gives regular believers gifts. He expects us to use our gifts. Unfortunately, the format of many churches allows little or no opportunity for believers to use their gifts. Often, one man, week after week, has an opportunity to use his gift, but other people are not allowed an opportunity to use their gifts.

The Example of the Synagogue

Synagogue meetings in the first century were liturgical with ritual prayers and scheduled Scripture reading. But the synagogue allowed a lot more freedom for members to minister to one another in their meetings, in some ways, that many modern churches allow.

In the first century synagogue, any Jewish male member of the synagogue might read a passage of scripture. In many churches nowadays, the same man gives the sermon week after week. But in the synagogue, regular Jewish men could read the scriptures before the congregation. A regular, unordained Jewish man who knew the Bible well and had good moral character could be a preacher of sermons in the synagogue. After the sermon was given, others in the congregation would ask questions and comment on the sermon in a discussion. We often see Jews debating with Paul in the synagogue in Acts

Christ, the twelve apostles, Paul and Barnabas all spent a lot of time in the synagogue. This was a part of their cultural background. Many of the saints in the churches of the first century, even those planted by Paul and Barnabas, were quite used to the synagogue. They were used to discussions of teachings of scriptural passages. If a teaching were presented in a church meeting in the first century, wouldn’t it have felt natural for the believers to discuss the teaching in the meeting?

The epistles of the New Testament emphasize the importance of using spiritual gifts to build one another up. The first century church had gifts that were not present in the synagogue before Christ came. The type of meeting Paul encouraged the Corinthians to have would have allowed for believers to express their gifts to build one another up much more freely than a synagogue format would have allowed. Ironically, many churches these days have less freedom for expression of gifts than a synagogue format would allow.

Evidence from the Problems of Churches in The First Century

The types of problems the New Testament addresses give us a clue as to the interactive nature of church meetings.

The Gentile Circumcision Controversy.
Let us take a look at the problems that arose in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1-2
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

In what venue did Paul and Barnabas argue with the men who were teaching the Gentiles to be circumcised? Considering the fact that the Jews in the synagogue could discuss or debate a teacher’s teachings, and that the apostles had grown up in the synagogue, isn’t it likely that Paul and Barnabas rebuked the false teachers in the assembly? If they had not confronted the false teachings publicly, many in the church may have stumbled.

Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to deal with the Gentile circumcision issue. Notice what happened in a meetings of the church in Jerusalem:

Standing up an disagreeing with a preacher in a church these days would seem like an incredibly rude act. But since the early church had an interactive format to meetings which allowed for more than one person to speak.

In Antioch, Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from eating with the Gentiles when some men came from Jerusalem. Paul confronted Peter ‘before them all’ (Galatians 2:14.) Isn’t it likely that Paul would have confronted the promoters of Gentile-circumcision before the congregation?

Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to deal with the Gentile circumcision issue. Notice what happened in a meetings of the church in Jerusalem:

Acts 15:4-5
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

Here Paul and Barnabas are speaking before the church. Because of the interactive format of church gatherings in the first century, some men stood up promoting Gentile circumcision.

Acts 15 continues on to tell us how the apostles and elders met and discussed the issue of Gentiles circumcision, and finally reached a decision. In this meeting, we do not see one man doing all the talking-preaching a sermon-while the rest listen. Instead, there was a lot of discussion until the assembly discerned the will of the Spirit as expressed in the scriptures.

False Prophecy

It is likely that the Thessalonians had had to deal with false prophecies:

II Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

What advice had Paul given to the Thessalonians about prophecy?

I Thessalonians 5:20-21
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Perhaps because of false prophecies, the Thessalonians may have been tempted to despise prophesyings. Paul’s solution for dealing with prophecies was not to reject them out of hand, but rather to prove them, and hold fast to the good.

The fact that prophecies were given and that the Thessalonians heard them is strong evidence for the exercise of the gift of prophecy in their meetings. As in Corinth, those with the gift of prophecy were to be allowed to speak.

Some would deal with false prophecies by forbidding the gift. But this is not Paul’s solution. To the Corinthians, Paul instructs that the prophets speak two or three, and that the other judge. (I Cor. 14:21.) Paul doesn’t instruct the churches to muzzle the mouths of the saints to prevent their every being any false teaching or prophecy. His solution is rather to allow the saints to use their gifts, and to deal with problems after they arise.

There are,. However, false teachers whose ‘mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11.) The open format of the early churches sometimes allowed room for false teachers to creep in. False teachers who deny the truth should be resisted by the whole congregation and, in particular, apostles and elders.

Sometimes, regular believers in the assembly may go off into strange doctrines, and want to preach them. The church in Ephesus had such people:

I Timothy 1:6-7
6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Paul taught not to pay attention to such teachers. (I Timothy 1:4.)

Biblical Remedy for False Teachers

The whole congregation of believers must make an effort to withdraw from those who teach false doctrine. Paul wrote,

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

Paul writes of such a person, in verse 5, “from such withdraw thyself.”

Apostles and elders in particular have a role in resisting false teaching. We see Paul and Barnabas resisted false teaching in Antioch. In II Peter 2, Peter writes against false teachers who taught for money and deceived people into sin.

The elders of the church also have a role in resisting false doctrine. The elders met with the apostles in Jerusalem to deal with the issue of Gentile circumcision in Acts 15.

In his instructions to Titus concerning elders, Paul describes their responsibility to defend the truth of the Gospel.

Titus 1:9-11
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Clearly, the open, mutually participatory nature of New Testament style meetings presents a lot of challenges. False teachers and false prophets may try to take advantage of the opportunity to share their dangerous ideas. Well-meaning believers may share ideas that are not edifying. The Bible gives us solutions to these problems. Apostles, elders, and ‘regular believers’ must all resist false doctrine and stand for the truth. Prophecies are to be carefully weighed.

The Bible offers solutions to the problems that arise in New Testament style meetings.
But the modern practice of not allowing regular believers to use their gifts also causes many problems.

Problems of Closed Meetings

Unused and Undeveloped Spiritual Gifts

Many problems arise in churches from not allow believers to exercise their gifts in church meetings. One problem is the fact that the local church body misses out on the blessings and benefits of the gifts of those who are not active in the meetings. Consider the following verses from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

I Corinthians 12:19-23
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

We need the gifts of all the parts of the body of Christ. We are supposed to be ministering to one another with these gifts.

Imagine if the only part of your body that you used to move around was your arm. The rest of your body is in a cast, except for that one arm. If you are very persistent, you may learn to drag yourself across a room by laying on the floor and pulling yourself along with that one arm. After a year of doing this, your arm muscles would be very strong. You would have powerful fingers. But what would happen if you were to remove the cast? The rest of your muscles would have atrophied. Your legs would not work properly.

Many churches are like this. A few parts of the local body use their gifts to edify others. The rest of the believers in the church often just sit there an listen. Many believers do not make much effort to use their spiritual gifts to edify others. Their gifts are often mostly unused, and are weak. They don’t use their gifts because they are not taught that they should. They think their role as Christians is simply to attend church meetings, pay tithes, and live a fairly decent life. The pastor and a few others in the church, who use their gifts, may have very well developed gifts.

No matter how knowledgeable a pastor is, he cannot edify a local church as well as all the members of the body of Christ using their gifts. Many pastors like to focus on a few topics that they are interested in, week after week. Some even begin to repeat themselves. Allowing all the gifted teachers in an assembly to teach helps the local body to learn the word of God better. Allowing the other gifts to function allows the body to be edified in other ways. Pay special attention to the following verse.

I Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Notice that all prophesy so that all may learn and be comforted. What happens if only one prophesies? Can we expect to get the same results if only one prophesies that we could if all prophesied? God has distributed His gifts among the body of Christ so that we need one another in order to be properly edified.

A local church where all believers use their gifts, and honor and seek the Lord with them is a powerful threat to the kingdom of Satan. Just imagine how much more powerful the church would be in evangelism and as a witness in society if all believers exercised their gifts to their full potential?

Lack of Community

Christians are supposed to be a loving community. The earliest saints in Jerusalem realized this, and took care of one another. Those who had wealth shared with those who had none. Christians are to fellowship with one another. We are to share our lives together. The love that we have for one another is to serve as a witness to the world

Consider the words of Christ in John 13:35 “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

The use of spiritual gifts to edify one another helps build community. Being ministered to by someone can help you increase your love and affection for that person. Think about someone who has ministered to you spiritually in the past- maybe someone who discipled you, prayed with you, or ministered to you in some other way. When you think of that person, don’t you feel grateful? Hasn’t his ministry caused your affection for that person to increase?

If you minister to someone, that can also cause your affections for that person to increase. When we serve one another in the body of Christ, it promotes love, community and oneness. Consider the words of Paul about the body of Christ from Ephesians.

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

Notice in this verse that every part of the body must work so that the body might edify itself in love. The word ‘edify’ shows up in many other passages in Paul’s letter. One chapter in which he uses the word many times in I Corinthians 14. Consider the following verse:

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

This verse appears in the context of a teaching on how to behave in church meetings. One of the main places the saints in the body of Christ are to use their gifts to minister to one another

Protecting Doctrinal Purity

Throughout the New Testament, we see that the early churches had a plurality of elders. Something especially dangerous about many churches today is that they have one pastor, or one pastor over all the rest, who, in some cases, is not held accountable if he preaches wrong doctrine.

While there are many humble servants of God preaching the word faithfully, there are also men who preach false doctrines. Guest speakers could come and preach false doctrines. What would happen in your church if a visiting preacher preached some strange doctrine? Imagine what he preached was not blatant heresy, but just something strange. Would there be any format for anyone to correct the strange idea during the meeting. Even if the preacher preached blatant false doctrine, in many churches the congregation would sit quietly and do nothing.

In Antioch, when men taught false doctrine, Paul and Barnabas argued with them. It would be very shocking for some other ministers of the Gospel to stand up and interrupt someone preaching heresy today. But we need to keep in mind that the evidence we see from scripture shows that early church meetings had an interactive format.

An interactive format helps protect churches from false teachers. But it can also help protect churches from their own pastors. The Bible never shows that apostles appointing one pastor over a church. They appointed a plurality of elders. If one elder taught something wrong, there were other elders to help correct the problem.

But something else to keep in mind is that the fact that regular believers could use their gifts in meetings also kept balance. In addition to the elders of the church ministering to the body, the teachers, prophets, and other saints could speak and minister. The Proverbs say, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14.)

One common problem in many churches that have one pastor is that, even though the pastor may be preaching the truth, he likes to focus on only a few issues. It is not fair for us to expect for one man in the church to contain all the gifts and knowledge of God. Of course, pastors will have their favorite doctrines and teachings. But focusing only on a few teachings can lead to an error of emphasis, or even doctrinal error.

Imagine a church where the pastor’s favorite topics are speaking in tongues and eschatology. Week after week, church members learn about little other than speaking in tongues and eschatology. Since the Bible contains a limited number of passages on speaking in tongues, in order to keep preaching on the subject, the preacher either has to repeat himself, or else be ‘creative’ in his interpretation of Scripture. As a result of overemphasis and ‘creative’ interpretation of scripture on this issue, there are some Christians who pray in tongues at the same time in church meetings without interpretation. Some even think that the Devil cannot hear you if you speak in tongues and that you should pray in tongues if you have a secret prayer you don’t want the Devil to hear. (Apparently, this idea comes from a strange interpretation of I Corinthians 14:2.)

It is Biblically true that God provides for His people, and this is a fine subject to teach on. But some preachers have focused too much on the issue of financial provision in their teaching, and ignored the many teachings of Christ against greed and trusting in wealth. Churches that overemphasize God providing us with wealth can easily appeal to the carnal mind and encourage greediness. If believers hear week after week about god giving them money, they may come to think that Christianity is all about getting money. This kind of doctrinal atmosphere is a place where conmen and false teachers can find easy prey.

An imbalanced focus on Calvinistic teachings can lead to hopelessness and even immorality. The Bible teaches us about rewards and punishments for a reason. If people are simply taught that their destiny is already decided and has nothing to do with their actions, they may grow lazy. On the other hand, overemphasis on free will and man’s responsibility can lead to false doctrine as well.

Having one member of an assembly do all the teaching can lead to imbalance. If one man teaches on God’s provision all the time, wouldn’t it be good for another man in the assembly to have freedom to teach on Christ’s sayings against greed?

An open format in an assembly provides an opportunity for false teachings to be addressed before all. It can prevent errors of emphasis which occur from hearing only one man speak on his favorite topics over and over again.

An open format in a meeting can also protect against false prophecies. Notice the common theme in the following verses:
I Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

I Thessalonians 5:20-21
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Prophecies are to be judged and tested. What better place is there to prayerfully, carefully, and reverently evaluate and apply prophecies than in a church meeting? I Corinthians 12:10 mentions the gift of discernment of spirits. In many churches that have prophecy in the meetings, the prophecies go by without any comment from anyone in the assembly on them. Shouldn’t those with the gift of discernment of spirits be allowed to exercise their gifts, right in the assembly to edify others?

Some think that open, New Testament style meetings can lead to doctrinal error. It is true that this type of format does allow for problems to occur. A well-disciplined congregation, used to such meetings, who know the word of God, and strong leadership are needed to protect against false teachers arising in the midst and from well-meaning brethren with strange ideas.

Ironically, though, open meetings can prevent false teachings and strange ideas from spreading that are promoted by leadership. A one-man pastorate with no accountability structure is a potentially dangerous thing.

Meetings the Key to Understanding Paul and Barnabas’ Church Planting Strategy

Understanding the way the early church conducted their meetings is a key to understanding how Paul and Barnabas could have planted so many churches. These two apostles left churches behind with no appointed leadership to lead their meetings, yet these churches were able to function for maybe months or years without apostles or elders to lead their meetings.

Churches that do not have elders can have open, interactive meetings for breaking bread and mutual edification. Such an environment is a good place for believers to meet, and grow in their gifts. When the apostles returned to the churches they had started, they were able to find men who could be appointed as elders of the church. These men had grown spiritually in the churches. Participating in church meetings would have helped them mature into the type of men suitable to be elders of the churches.

© Paul L. Hudson, Jr. 2002

HOW PAUL PLANTED CHURCHES

How Paul Planted Churches

We use the Bible as a source for doctrine and subject matter for preaching and teaching. But so many times, we overlook the fact that the Bible contains examples of church practices for us to imitate.

Many of the modern strategies for church planting are different from the strategies we see in the book of Acts. Let’s consider a modern church planting strategy for reaching unreached areas: Send Indonesian young people who want to be preachers to Bible school. When they graduate, send them one by one or two by two to a village that does not have a church. During this time a church or yayasan contributes money to support the church planters. After a church planter has started a new church and the number of people has grown, the church then goes about raising funds to rent, buy, or build a new church building. The church planter stays at the church he has planted, serving as pastor. If he chooses to leave and plant more churches, or to return to the city and minister there, another Bible college graduate may be selected to take his place as pastor.

No doubt many new churches have been planted by this strategy. But how does this strategy compare with what we see in the scriptures? The strategies for planting churches found in the book of Acts are actually more efficient than this. Let us study the method of church planting used by Paul and Barnabas on what is known as their First Missionary Journey, recorded in the book of Acts.

The Background of Paul and Barnabas

Who were Paul and Barnabas?

Before Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) was a believer, as a young man, he was a persecutor of Christians. He had been trained in Jewish religious law by the famous Jewish scholar Gamaliel in Jerusalem. Saul was a Pharisee, and a Roman citizen, and probably one of the more privileged Jews of his day.

Saul was very zealous in his religion, and sought to persecute the church. He held the garments for those who stoned Stephen, consented to the death of other Christians who were prosecuted for their faith. Saul went around dragging Christians out of houses, to put them in prison. He got letters from the chief priests authorizing the arrest of Christians in Damascus. Together with a group of Jewish men, he set out on the road to Damascus. He then saw a light from heaven. Christ spoke to him, and he was blind. Then the Lord spoke to a believer in Damascus, Ananias, instructing him to baptize Saul. Saul then became a preacher of the Gospel, and came to be know as Paul.

Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus in the Jerusalem church. His name was Joses, but the apostles called him ‘Barnabas.’ One might translate Barnabas as ‘son of prophecy.’ Luke explains that this name meant ‘son of encouragement.’ Barnabas was the one to introduce Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) to the apostles in Jerusalem.

When scattered believers went to Antioch and started a church, the Jerusalem church sent Barnabas to encourage them. Through Barnabas ministry, many came to the Lord. Barnabas then went to Tarsus, found Paul, and brought him to Antioch. Together, they taught the saints for two years. (Acts 11:19-26.)

Paul and Barnabas’ God-Approved Church Planting Methodology

Saul and Barnabas were sent out by the Spirit from Antioch. After this, they both were involved in itinerant church planting ministries. Let us look at the passage that tells how they were sent out.

Acts 13:1-4
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Something important to notice in this passage is that the Holy Spirit sent the apostles off on their journey to complete the work that He, the Spirit, had called them to do. The brethren only separated them to ministry by the laying on of hands. After this, the book of Acts refers to both men as ‘apostles’ (Acts 14:4, 14.)

Did Paul and Barnabas complete the work the Spirit gave them? Let us look at the following verse about Paul and Barnabas at the completion of their journey.

Acts 14:26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.

Here we see that Paul and Barnabas had fulfilled the work they were sent to complete. Who had designed for them the work to do? The Spirit.

Christians may debate whether people in the stories in the Bible did what was right or not. Some may say that David was wrong to fight with the Philistines. Some Christians think it was right for Paul to go to Jerusalem before his arrest. Others think he was wrong. But concerning Paul and Barnabas’ work here in Acts 13 through 14, we know that they did the work the Spirit gave them to do. Their methodology was God-approved. We know this because the Spirit had called them to a work and they completed that work (Acts 13:2, 14:26).

In these chapters, we see a God-ordained strategy for missions. Let us carefully examine these chapters to learn how these apostles planted churches.

An Overview of the First Missionary Journey

Saul and Barnabas set off with John Mark, Barnabas’ nephew, They traveled to Seleucia, and from there traveled to Cyprus, an island in the Mediterranean. In Cyprus, we are not sure how many cities Paul and Barnabas preached in. Acts chapter 13 does mention two cities where they ministered: Salamis and Paphos. Acts 13:6 mentions that Paul and Barnabas had ‘gone through the isle.” We do not know how many churches were started through the preaching of Paul and Barnabas. We do know that later, Barnabas returned to Cyprus when Paul suggested to him that they go visit the brethren in every city where they had preached the word of the Lord. (Acts 15:36.)

From Paphos, Paul and Barnabas sailed back to the mainland, to Asia Minor. There, Mark left them and returned home. Paul and Barnabas traveled from city to city. They would go into a synagogue, preach about Jesus, trying to win Jews, proselytes, and God-fearing Gentiles to the faith.

We know from Acts 13 and 14 that many churches were started through Paul and Barnabas’ ministry on the mainland in Asia. We see that people repented and believed in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. Then Paul and Barnabas returned back through areas where they had ministered, they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. There they encouraged the saints and ordained elders in every church. (Acts 14:22-23.)

After this, Paul and Barnabas traveled to Perga, preached the word there, went to Attalia, and from there sailed back to Antioch. In Antioch, they reported the good things that God had done on their mission. (Acts 14:27.)

This journey is known as ‘The First Missionary Journey’ because it is the first of three journeys Paul took that are recorded in the book of Acts. It is estimated that this journey may have taken less than two years.

Paul and Barnabas’ strategy on the journey was to preach to the Jews, proselytes, and believing Gentiles in the synagogues in the cities they visited. Usually, some people from the synagogue would believe the Gospel. They would preach the Gospel to the Jews first, before turning to the Gentiles, and therefore preached in the synagogues first. (Acts 13:46-49.) Sometimes Jews who did not believe their message would stir up opposition to them, and Paul and Barnabas would flee in the midst of persecution and find another place to preach.

Principles from the First Missionary Journey

Since the missionary strategy that Paul and Barnabas followed in Acts 13 through 14 is endorsed by God, we would benefit from studying it in depth. Let us consider some key principles from the first missionary journey.

Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the Holy Spirit.
The apostles sent out planted many churches in a relatively short period of time.
Paul and Barnabas left churches behind, entrusting them to the Holy Spirit, instead of remaining at a few churches pastoring them for decades.
The apostles visited churches started through their ministry to strengthen them and to check up on them.
The churches planted by apostles were already ‘churches’ before elders were appointed in them.
The apostles appointed elders from within the churches started through their ministries.
.The apostles were commended to the grace of God by the Antioch brethren, not controlled by them.

Sent Out by the Holy Spirit

As believers in Christ interested in evangelizing Indonesia, we need to know the Holy Spirit’s plans for evangelization. That is why it is important to study his methods as revealed in Acts 13 through 14. But if we simply look at what Paul and Barnabas did, and try to repeat it using our own wisdom, we will still fall short of the example they left.

Paul and Barnabas were chosen specifically by the Holy Spirit for the mission they chose. The brethren in Antioch didn’t simply find a pattern of how the Spirit worked, and send out missionaries on their own. The Spirit had already called Saul and Barnabas to a work (Acts 13:2). The Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers there, revealing this to them?

How did the Spirit speak to the church, to reveal His will regarding whom to send? We are not completely sure from the text. Prophets were present. It is conceivable that the Spirit spoke through prophets. Compare this to Timothy’s experience in recorded I Timothy 4:14.

Saul and Barnabas were already faithfully serving the brethren in Antioch. Then, God revealed to certain brethren the call that was on these men’s lives. These brethren laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and supported them by sending them out with prayer and fasting.

Something to notice about Saul and Barnabas is that the Spirit had called them to go out. They weren’t sent on a mission because they had completed Bible college and were looking for a job. They didn’t go out just because the church members thought it might be a good idea. The Lord directed the church.

What would happen if the Spirit spoke to your church about people among you who were called to go out, preach, and plant churches? How would your church respond? Would you support them with prayer and fasting.

Yayasan, Bible colleges and denominations sometimes send out preachers. But how often does a local church send out preachers to preach the Gospel? It does happen in Indonesia, but many local churches think it is the responsibility of evangelistic yayasan, Bible colleges, and denominations to send out such workers. Never in the Bible to we see workers being sent out by these three kinds of institutions. But we do see them being sent out by brethren that knew them from their own church. What if God is preparing men in your church to send out people from your church to go plant churches? Will your church be attentive to the Spirit and ready to hear His voice? Will your church commend such men to the Lord, and pray for them, or does your church expect only Bible colleges and yayasan to send out missionaries?

We need to pray for the Lord to send forth laborers into his harvest, as Jesus taught (Matthew 9:38.) We need to pray in faith, expecting God to prepare people from our churches to go preach the Gospel in the unreached areas,

Planting Many Churches in a Short Period of Time

Imagine the criticism that Paul and Barnabas might receive from modern church leaders.

“Paul and Barnabas, how could you leave those churches alone. You should have stayed there and pastored at the first church you started. How could you leave those churches so quickly?”

Paul and Barnabas’ method of leaving behind young churches and going off to start new ones resulted in many churches. We don’t know exactly how many cities Paul and Barnabas planted churches in on their journey together, but we do know that they preached in at least 7 cities. It is possible that they planted more than seven churches. If all this were completed in about two years, those results are phenomenal.

One of the problems with modern church planting methodologies is that they assume that God has one type of minister ministering the word. Apostles, evangelists, and local church overseers are put into the same category, ‘hamba Tuhan.’ It is common to hear preachers use verses about apostles, and apply them to local church pastors.

In order to better understand church planting in the Bible, we have to understand that there were many kinds of ministers. The Bible mentions apostles involved in the work of the ministry, elders, charged with shepherding local churches, and deacons, chosen to serve the needs of the church. Mixing the roles of the apostle and the elder in the Bible create confusion.

Today, one of the missions strategies is to train men in Bible college, ordain them as pendeta and then send these men out alone or in groups of two or more to start new churches. The idea seems to be that one of the Bible college graduates who plants a church will stay behind and pastor that church for an extended period of time.

Tying a church planter down with the responsibility of staying behind long-term, can actually limit his usefulness to the kingdom. Paul’s heart was to preach the Gospel to those who had never heard of Christ (Romans 5:12.) The call of God on His life was for him to travel from place to place Paul didn’t stay behind in a church he planted and be the ‘full-time pastor.’ If he had, how could he have accomplished so much in his ministry?

If God gifted men to travel and preach the Gospel among the unreached,, starting new churches, might He not do the same today? There is a lot more focus on apostles who ministered like this-- Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, and many others—in the New Testament than there is on local church ministers. We don’t even know the name of any local church elders who were not also apostles in the first century church.

If the Bible pays a lot of attention to traveling evangelistic church planters, then shouldn’t we consider this important to God? Why is it that many churches church planting programs assume that the church planter will settle down as a local pastor?

Visiting to Strengthen Churches

We see that on the first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas returned to churches they had planted already.

Acts 14:21-23
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Paul and Barnabas did not stay behind for years in any church they planted while on this first missionary journey. But they did go back and visit the churches. During this time, the churches apparently had no appointed pastor until Paul and Barnabas returned to appoint elders.

Later, on Paul’s Second missionary journey, we see that we would either return to churches he had planted, or else send trusted co-workers in the Lord. The epistles frequently mention Paul sending Timothy and other co-workers to churches that had been planted to help them. On the First Missionary Journey, human resources may have been scarce. Mark had left the group when they arrived on the mainland from Cyprus. But later, as more saints matured, Paul ha men he could send to new churches to strengthen them during their crucial years.

After the First Missionary Journey, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, took a trip to Jerusalem, and returned to Antioch. After some time in Antioch, they decided to visit the churches they planted again.

Acts 15:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

We can see how important it was for these apostles to keep an eye on the new churches. On the one hand, they must have had incredible trust in the Holy Spirit to protect and guide these new churches. On the other, they were responsible for the work the Lord gave them. Being responsible did not mean staying behind as local pastors in any church they had started. The Lord had prepared men able to pastor the churches, as wee see in Acts 14:23, above. The Lord caused elders to mature to the point where they could be responsible for the household of faith.

Churches Already Churches Before Elders Are Appointed

Something to notice from the First Missionary Journey is that the churches Paul and Barnabas planted were churches even when there were no appointed leaders. Let us consider Acts 14:23 carefully:

“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”

The passages shows us that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church. The passage does not teach that the assemblies of believers became churches after the apostles appointed elders.

Somehow, the churches Paul and Barnabas left behind could still function without apostles or elders to lead the meetings. The saints could still meet, probably celebrating the Lord’s Supper, baptizing new believers, and functioning as churches in the absence of appointed leadership.

Many have the idea that a church is only a church if there is a professional pastor there, and that otherwise a church is not legitimate. But we can see in the First Missionary Journey, that this is not a scriptural concept.

Let us imagine an evangelist goes to an unreached village with the Gospel and that people repent as a result of his ministry. The believers there gather together to exhort one another. Some would view this group as a ‘fellowship’ [persekutuan] if they were not registered with a denomination as a ‘church.’ Is this idea scriptural?
Watchman Nee addressed the issue of the definition of ‘church’ in his book The Normal Christian Church Life.

...in the course of the apostles' first missionary tour, many people were saved in different places through the preaching of the Gospel. Nothing is mentioned about their being formed into churches, but in Acts 14:23 it is said of Paul and Barnabas that "they...appointed for them elders in every church." The groups of believers in these different places are called churches, without any explanation whatever as to how they came to be churches. They were groups of believers, so they simply were churches. Whenever a number of people in any place were saved, they spontaneously became the church in that place.

If in a given place anyone believes on the Lord, as a matter of course he is a constituent of the church in that place. No subsequent "joining" is required of him. Provided he belongs to the Lord, he already belongs to the church in that locality; and since he already belongs to the church, his belonging cannot be made subject to any condition.

We see that neither registering with a denomination nor having an appointed elder in a congregation are prerequisites to a group of believers having a church. As important as elders are to the church, there were very good reasons for the apostles allowing churches to grow and develop without appointed elders.

In I Timothy 3:6, Paul writes that an overseer is not to be a novice. Naturally, if the apostles did not want to appoint novices in the faith, they would need to wait for men to mature spiritually before they could be appointed as elders of the church.

A key factor that allowed Paul and Barnabas to appoint so many churches was that they were willing to leave infant churches in the care of the Holy Spirit. During the time without official, appointed elders, the Holy Spirit worked in the churches, and eventually the Lord prepared elders in the churches.

Elders Appointed From Within

Something very important to notice about Paul and Barnabas’ church-planting method is that the elders of the New Churches were appointed from within the congregation. We can also see from Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus that it was the practice to appoint men from within churches as overseers. (I Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5)

There is a lot of confusion about the word ‘elder.’ The Bible uses the term ‘overseer’ interchangeable with the word ‘elder.’ (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5-7.) The elders of the church were men charged with pastoring the flock of God (Acts 20:28, I Peter 5:2). Today, terms like ‘pendeta’ or ‘gembala’ are used to refer to official, recognized local church leadership. The New Testament generally uses terms ‘elders’ or ‘overseers.’

A common church practice in Indonesia, and around the world, is for newly planted churches to hire professional pastors from some other area to come in and serve as pastor. In some cases, the pastor is sent in by a denomination. In others, he is hired or fired by the local congregation who hires him.

This is very different from the practice of the apostles, who appointed elders from within churches. There are many benefits to appointing elders from within a church which will be dealt with in later chapters of this book. But, in regard to church planting, one of the most obvious reasons is that appointing elders from within churches allows for faster church planting.

Imagine a mengkudu tree. A mengkudu tree can grow from a seed from a mengkudu fruit. Just plant the seed in the right kind of ground in the right conditions, and given time, it will grow into a full tree. All the genetic information to produce all the parts of that tree is included in that little seed. The roots, the wood, the bark, the leaves, the mengkudu fruit, the expensive juice inside the fruit, and even new seeds are all inside one small mengkudu seed.

Now, think about churches ‘planted’ by the preaching of the word of God. In the DNA of a New Testament church, are various parts of a whole ‘tree.’ Over and over, the apostles preached the word of God and new churches formed. As these churches formed, different parts of the ‘tree’ developed. A certain ‘part of the tree’ that developed was the elders of the church. If churches in the New Testament produced elders who were able to pastor the flock of God, shouldn’t we expect that New Testament style churches planted today will produce elders?

Why then are so many church systems set up to hire pastors from outside the church, rather than to teach and train potential elders from within the church? Why is so much money spent on sending people to Bible college, instead of bringing ‘Bible college’ into the local church community?

Confusion of Apostle and Local Church Overseer Roles

Many of the offices in modern churches and denominations often do not exactly correspond with the offices found in the New Testament. Isn’t it time that we returned to the New Testament? If we believe that leaders in the church are empowered to do their work through gifts of the Holy Spirit, then shouldn’t we expect that the gifts that God gives today are the same types of gifts named in the New Testament.

If the New Testament does not mention pendeta, why should we assume that God gives out a pendeta gift? The Bible does mention gifts in regard to pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, and apostles. Why should we expect God to gifts that correspond with modern denominational positions? Shouldn’t we rather expect him to give gifts described in the Holy Scriptures?

The word pendeta is not found in the Bible. It actually comes from an Indian word used for Hindu scholars. The concept of the Christian pendeta is a mixture of the Biblical roles of apostle, elder, deacon, gift of helps, and various other extra-Biblical ideas. A pendeta may be sent out from a Bible college or denomination to a new area. The New Testament apostles were sent out to new areas. The local church elders mentioned in the Bible developed and matured to the point of being suitable for leadership while within existing congregations.

A pendeta may function as a local church overseer, tending to the needs of a local flock, praying for the sick, ministering the word locally. In this sense he functions somewhat like a local church overseer.

A pendeta is expected to be able to handle minute details of church administration and services, duties that may have been performed by early believers in the role of deacon, or with the gift of helps.

And, of course, pendeta, are often expected to perform many extra-scriptural functions, such as govern a church alone without fellow overseers, marry the young, and bury the dead.

Many denominations expect pendeta to perform the work that, Biblically, should be done by an entire local body. This makes for a very difficult job. No wonder so many pendeta are overworked.

Biblically, is there any reason to expect that all of the elders of early churches would have been gifted to plant new churches? Some elders might be gifted in this sense, but others may not. Then why do we expect such things of modern men ordained as pendeta.

In the Bible, we see that apostles generally were the ones to plant new churches, and elders generally pastored local works. Yet, today, many denominational policies combine the duties of apostles and elders into the role of the pendeta—which creates confusion.

If someone were gifted to travel and plant new churches, he might be able to receive recognition as an ‘evangelist’ in some denominations. In some denominations, however, an evangelist is not allowed to baptize, or else not allowed to sign a legal baptism certificate. Evangelists far out on the frontiers of the Gospel may be left with the decision to follow the Biblical practice of baptizing new believers, and trying to find someone to sign a certificate later, or else not baptizing new believers themselves.

In the Bible, traveling preachers like Paul and Barnabas baptized. Why shouldn’t traveling preachers now baptize? Why do some denominations only have pendeta baptize?

Pendeta is a word from a pagan religion. So let us abandon the word pendeta and the unscriptural concepts associated with it, and return to scriptural terminology and concepts in regard to church leadership. Let us not only use the Bible as a source for teaching material, but let us also use it as a guidebook for church structure and evangelism strategy.

Conclusion

Paul and Barnabas’s strategy for planting churches, recorded in Acts 13-14, came from the Holy Ghost. It was a very successful strategy, producing many New Testament churches in a relatively short period of time.

The apostles, Paul and Barnabas, were sent to preach the Gospel. Their calling made it necessary for them to leave newly planted churches behind. But that was okay, because the Lord took care of these churches. Though the apostles left these churches without elders, the Lord was able to raise up elders from within the congregations themselves. The apostles didn’t send Bible college students to fill pastoral positions in these new churches. God raised up the men themselves, from within the churches.

If God sent forth men to travel from place to place preaching and starting new churches, shouldn’t we expect Him to do the same today? If God could take care of churches left behind by the apostles for many months at a time back then, can’t we believe Him to do the same today? If God could raise up local leadership from within new church plants, couldn’t he do the same today? The Bible is not only a book of sermon-material, but also a guidebook for how the body of Christ should operate. It shows us how God operates. Let us believe God to expand the church in Indonesia as He expanded the church in the Bible. Let us pray and believe God to do this.

© Paul L. Hudson, Jr. 2003

TRADITIONS: GOOD, BAD, NEUTRAL AND APOSTOLIC

Traditions: Good, Bad, Neutral, and Apostolic

(BY LINK HUDSON)

In the United States, one meal that some families enjoy is a big ham. A ham is a piece of pork, smoked, and cooked in the oven.

One day an American woman was cooking a ham, and her daughter was helping her prepare the meal. The mother cut an end off the ham, put the ham in the pan, put the end of the ham on top of the ham, and put it all in the oven.

The daughter asked her mother, “Why do you cut the end off the ham before you cooked it?”

Here mother thought about it. “I don’t know,” her mother replied, “My mother always cut the end of the ham and I just cook it the way she taught me. I’ll have to remember to ask Grandma about that some time.”

One day, while visiting with Grandma, she asked, “Why do you always cut the end off the ham when you cook it? Does it cook faster?”

“No,” Grandma said, “Our pan was too small, so I cut the ends off the ham to make it fit.”

The Influence of Tradition on Church Styles

Many church traditions are just like this illustration. So many things we do in church we do because of what we have seen and heard in our church experience, and not because of what we read in scripture.

Go into a Charismatic church in Indonesia. You may see electric guitars and keyboards. You may hear a style of worship music that comes from America. The preacher may be wearing a tie. Is there anything in the Bible that teaches us that we must use electric guitars and keyboards in our meetings, or that a preacher must wear a tie? The apostles lived before the tie was in style. There is nothing in scripture that tells us that we must sing all our songs in a particular style of American praise music. But some people in these churches associate this style of music with a proper church meeting.

Go into a Protestan church and look around. In some churches, you will see a high pulpit on the left, nice wooden pews, a piano, and an organ. Listen to the music in a Protestan church. You will hear old hymns written in musical styles that were popular in northern Europe several hundred years ago. Nothing in scripture commands us to have a raised pulpit on the left, wooden pews. Nothing in scripture teaches us that our church music must sound like northern European music from several hundred years ago. Yet some people feel that a church is in error if it does not sing this style of music.

[footnote] The Open Church by James Rutz says that the white collar Roman Catholic priests wear was once the style for shirts in France for about a decade. Priests, not having as much money, did not always keep up with the newest trends, and kept wearing the older style collars. Over time, the white collar became associated with Roman Catholic priests. According to the same book, , during the Reformation John Calvin wore regular business clothes when he preached in church meetings. The fancy, religious ceremonial clothes now worn by some Protestan clergymen are the clothes that regular businessmen would have worn in Geneva four hundred years ago!

Special clothing for church leaders has actually been a point of controversy since the Reformation. Many feel that it is appropriate for ministers to dress like regular people in accordance with the priesthood of all believers. If John Calvin dressed in regular business clothes for church, it is ironic that the regular clothes he once were are now associated with being a member of a holy pendeta class.

I have gotten to know an Irian Jayan minister of the Gospel named Bpk. Danis. He has shared with me about how the Gospel came to His people group, the Dani, in the 1960’s and transformed it. Some Dani still live in very remote areas. Some men still wear a koteka, though some may have a pair of shorts. In church meetings in some of these villages, the men will attend wearing nothing but a koteka-- but not the preacher. He will wear a tie- no shirt, no pants- a tie and a koteka or a pair of shorts. Why does he wear a tie? Because he is a preacher? Wearing a tie during a meeting is a common practice for some western preachers, but it isn’t something the Bible teaches us that we must do.

Many of these practices, such as wearing ties or singing European-style hymns are not wrong. It is just strange that we, as humans, have a tendency to consider non-essential traditions to be sacred. Many of these traditions evolve over time. Unfortunately, some of these traditions can actually hinder the spread of the Gospel.

Church Planting and Cultural Imperialism

Sundar Singh was born a well-to-do Indian Sikh. His mother hoped that he would become a sadhu, a religious holy man who traveled from place to place. After his mother died, as a teenager, Sundar Singh led a band of boys who threw rocks and Christians. He hated Christianity. On the verge of suicide, he prayed to God to reveal himself and had a revelation of Christ. In his teen years, Sundar Singh became a radical Christian. While still young, he began to travel from place to place as a Christian sadhu, evangelizing Indians. He spent his life evangelizing in India and Tibet and even traveled to Europe.

Sundar Singh wore Indian clothes, ate like an Indian, talked like an Indian, and acted like an Indian. This method of evangelism was quite revolutionary. Some call Sundar Singh the apostle to India. Why was this so revolutionary? It was common for Christians in India to forsake local customs and act like the English. The Christians wore different clothes, at with different eating utensils and adapted other practices of English culture. The English wanted a class of educated Indians who could speak the local languages, speak English, and adapt English culture. As a youth, Sundar Singh saw Christians as a tool of the British Empire, and associated them with a regime that colonized his country.

What do English-style clothing, English cooking utensils have to do with Christianity? The earliest believers had none of these things. The Jerusalem saints probably sung their music on a different musical scale from the European scale used in so many church hymns.

Let us consider Paul’s philosophy of ministry in regard to evangelizing people of different cultures:

1 Corinthians 9:19-22
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

If a preacher every had a good reason to impose his culture on others, wasn’t it Paul? Paul was Jewish. He was from a nation that God revealed Himself to and through. God gave Israel laws and customs. Jesus was Jewish. But God realized that God had created the Gentiles and put them in their nations, and tried to relate to them according their own culture.

There were some things from Jewish culture which were important and carried over into the practices of the Gentile churches. Jews would greet one another with a kiss, and the Gentile Christians were to practice the holy kiss. The Lord’s Supper, practiced by all the churches, had roots in the Passover feast.

Let us consider the issue of church music. Gentile churches developed hymns. Think of the old hymn Oh Come Let Us Adore. [semba dan puji dia] This Latin hymn is believed to date back to the 300’s. No doubt these hymns sounded quite different from the hymns sung by the Jews in the temple. The earliest Jerusalem saints would have sung the Psalms on a Jewish music scale. The notes the Jews sang were probably different from the Latin hymns. We can recognize that both this Latin hymn, and the inspired hymns of the Israelite temple as beautiful, godly music.

If the early Christians were not completely adapt Jewish culture-clothing, musical styles, and various other customs, should a modern Gentile Christian group expect new believers from other cultures to accept their culture?

Let us suppose that a missionary reaches a very remote village in Bali. These villagers have never even heard any kind of popular music. Their concept of music is based the tunes played on the gamelon. Would it be better for a missionary to teach hymns written in the musical scale of this village, or to introduce completely foreign-sounding hymns on a musical scale the villagers do not understand? If the missionary that reaches them is from a Christian village in Irian Jaya, should he teach all the Balinese to wear koteka like his fellow Christians back home, rather than the type of clothes the Balinese like to wear? (I know an Irian brother who plants churches in Bali, and he does not teach people to wear a koteka to the meetings.)

Sometimes the foreign culture missionaries introduce into new native churches can make the Gospel seem unnecessarily foreign to unbelievers in that area. Missionaries need to be careful not to compromise to pagan customs, preserve essential Christian traditions, but also keep from evangelizing people with their own culture, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The early churches we see in the Bible met in homes. Yet some people seem to think that pews, pulpits, and church buildings are essentials to plant a new church. The apostles did not wear neckties, white collars, or purple robes, yet some think that preachers must wear special clothes. The apostles had no organs or electric guitars. Yet some feel uncomfortable without one of these instruments in their meetings. Let us truly consider what is Biblical Christianity, and what are aspects of our own culture associated with religion.

European hymns and American worship choruses are beautiful. Western styles of music are now a part of mainstream Indonesian culture except in the remotest areas. There is nothing wrong with a little bit of cross-cultural experience in church. Americans sometimes like to sound Russian sounding hymns. But we err when we begin to think that Christianity has to be wrapped in western garb in order to be legitimate. To this day, there are people who think that a church is not singing properly if it sings worship choruses rather than the old hymns. Is this because the Bible teaches us to sing old European hymns? No. Those who believe this way usually believe it because they sung hymns in their own church experience. It is what is familiar to them, and what ‘feels right.’

A lot of what we do in church we do because we are imitating what we have seen and heard, not because of what the scriptures teach. These are traditions that we hold to. Some of these traditions can be good, some can be bad, and others are neutral.

Churches Must Be Reproducible

George Patterson is an American missionary who planted churches in Central America. The churches he planted grew into a house church movement. This brother has since served as a church planting coach for YWAM and other organizations, coaching teams of missionaries who have started churches in under-evangelized areas like Cuba and Mongolia.

One principle that George Patterson stresses is that new churches that are planted have to be reproducible. For example, if a missionary goes into the jungle and uses an overhead projector to teach discipleship lessons to new believers using colorful overheads, this is not a reproducible pattern. Some of those young believers may eventually turn into teachers. The way these believers know how to teach discipleship methods is with color slides. If they have had no experience even hearing a lesson presented another way, the model they have learned is not reproducible.

Later, when the missionary has gone on to another work, and this jungle church wants to plant a church among their fellow tribesmen

Imagine a missionary from Jakarta plants a church in a remote, unreached Dayak village in central Kalimantan. He teaches the people through an interpreter. This Jakartan instructs the Dayak to build a church building with a steeple on top. The villagers are not very skilled in making pews, so he returns to Jakarta, and raises some funds to buy nice wooden pews. He also buys a spiral staircase with a pulpit on top. He ships these items to the new Dayak church.

These Dayak believers now associate pews and raised pulpits with church. Obviously, they are important, they reason, or else the missionary would not have bought them. Later, when the missionary has gone on to another field, this Dayak church decides to reach out to other Dayak in other villages. Each time a new church is planted in a village, special care is made to either construct nice polished pews and raised pulpits, or else to raise money to buy them from another island. The process for completing the pulpit and pews may take nearly a year.

Slowly, one year at a time, one village is reached and one church building complete with pews and pulpit is assembled.

Just imagine the difference if a missionary from Jakarta were to reach this Dayak village, and simply instructed them to meet in homes or in a clearing in the center of a village. When the believers Dayak village later started their church planting campaign in other villages, they could focus on preaching and teaching, and leave new village churches with the simple, Biblical, reproducible pattern of meeting in homes.

One missions magazine reported on the missions efforts in Mongolia. Many Korean missionaries had gone to Mongolia, and, due to similarities in language, were able to learn Mongolian and were able to preach in a year. The missionaries from Korea are a great blessing to Mongolia. However, one Korean missionary brought with him a gold communion chalice from their church in Seoul. Imagine how slowly Mongolian churches would reproduce if new Mongolian church members got the idea that communion should always be served in a gold chalice?

Following Apostolic Traditions

To many evangelicals, ‘tradition’ is almost a bad word. Many think of tradition as the enemy of scripture. But the Bible tells us about certain kinds of tradition that are actually good. Read the verse that follows carefully.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Not only are we to follow the doctrinal teachings of the New Testament, but we are also to follow the traditions of the apostles. By studying the New Testament, we can learn the way the apostles did things, and imitate them.

Paul realized that people imitate what they see. Just think about a little child. A little boy learns to talk like his father. He may walk like his father walks, use his father’s gestures, and repeat the phrases his father says. If his father says dirty words, you can expect that the child will imitate him.

Paul, as an apostle, had to live a clean life-a life worthy of imitation. He also had to demonstrate the proper traditions to the churches to imitate. Paul wrote, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ( 1 Corinthians 11:1-2.)

Paul wanted believers to imitate him, and also to imitate the traditions concerning church meetings he passed down to them. Look at the arguments Paul made to persuade the Corinthians to follow his instructions for church meetings given in I Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:36-37
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Look at verse 36. Paul tries to persuade the Corinthians to obey his instructions based on the fact that the word of God did not originate with them and they were not the only people to have received it. The word of God had come out from Jerusalem, and there were certain church protocols that were to be followed in all the churches. In verse 33, Paul makes mention of ‘all the churches of the saints.’ (v. 33.) The Corinthians did not have the right to ignore God-ordained principles for church meetings.

In verse 37, Paul offers an even stronger argument for following his instructions. They were commandments of the Lord.

What kind of practices do we see the apostles and the early church carrying out when we look in the scriptures? The Jerusalem church met at the temple. The temple was the center of Jewish sacrifice. There was one temple for the Hebrews in Jerusalem. Rival temples in the Old Testament would have been classified as ‘high places.’ The Jerusalem church met on Solomon’s porch in the temple compound. They also met from house to house.

Acts 2:46 “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”

After the Gospel was preached among the Gentiles, who lived far from the Jerusalem temple, we see that Gentile Christians gathered in churches that met in homes. (Romans 16:4-5, 23, I Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15, and Philemon 1:2.) There is no record of any believers building a special-purpose church building in scripture.

This principle of apostolic tradition is one reason many people in house churches choose to carefully study the patterns of scripture, and implement them. We all realize that there were some things practiced by the apostles that were only for a certain time or only for people of a certain area. One example would be participating in temple rituals. Paul was arrested while preparing to participate in a temple ritual. Yet we know from the teaching of scripture that this is not required for Gentile Christians.

In some areas, Christians will disagree on what is a required apostolic pattern. One passage in scripture shows believers meeting on the first day of the week. (Acts 20:7.) Another verse instructions Christians to save their money for a particular offering on the first day of the week. (I Corinthians 16:2.) Some Christians adamantly argue, based on this, that Christians must meet and eat Holy Communion on the first day of the week, even though Acts 2:46 shows the Jerusalem church meeting and breaking bread daily.

We as believers must be tolerant of one another, and be sensitive to other believer’s consciences. It is possible for some to go to far with reading apostolic traditions into scripture. On the other hand, much of the church pays little attention to many Biblical patterns and traditions.

In regard to church planting, there are many Biblical patterns that can be applied to modern evangelistic efforts. From the first century to the fourth century, Christians, though persecuted at times, grew rapidly until the pagan Roman Empire fell. What were some of the secrets of their church growth? What methods of church planting do we see in the New Testament?
© Paul L. Hudson, Jr. 2001

KETIKA TUHAN - AGAMA TAK BERDINDING

Menyikapi Surat SPB 2 Menteri tentang:
Rumah Ibadat

             KETIKA TUHAN—AGAMA TAK BERDINDING

Agama tanpa tembok dengan demikian menjadi visi dan cara baru beribadat.
                                             Oleh: Stevanus Subagijo

Surat Peraturan Bersama (SPB) Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Menteri Agama Nomor 8
dan 9 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas kepala Daerah / Wakil
Kepala Daerah dalam Pemeliharaan Kerukunan Umat Beragama dan Pendirian
Rumah Ibadat—yang merupakan revisi Surat Keputusan Bersama (SKB) Menteri
Dalam Negeri dan Menteri Agama Nomor 1 Tahun 1969—telah ditandatangani.

     Selanjutnya, surat yang sudah dikenal sebagai sumber polemik ihwal pendirian
rumah ibadat—termasuk yang memicu pelarangan ibadat—itu akan melalui tahap
implementasi di lapangan.
     Seperti sudah diduga sebelumnya, reaksi yang terjadi adalah beberapa rumah
yang dijadikan tempat ibadah di tutup oleh warga. Penutupan lebih karena tidak di
penuhinya persyaratan sesuai SPB.
     Secara tidak langsung tersirat bahwa terpenuhinya syarat sesuai SPB lebih tinggi
nilainya daripada ibadat itu sendiri. Substansi ibadat kepada Tuhan mengalami
degradasi, tidak lebih penting dari persyaratan pendirian rumah ibadat.

Transformasi Ibadah
     Terlepas dari perdebatan soal perlu tidaknya izin pendirian rumah ibadat (dalam
praktiknya mencakup pula izin beribadat), sisi positif kasus ini membuka mata perihal
keber-agama-an baru. Baru di sini bukan berarti pertama kali ada, tetapi baru dalam
arti pemeluk agama disadarkan akan ketidak-terbatasan Tuhan yang menjadi tujuan
ibadat, yang mestinya juga terbawa dalam ketidak-terbatasan cara beribadat kepada-
Nya.
     Mereka yang menentang SPB sebagai revisi SKB mengatakan bahwa ibadat tidak
perlu memakai izin. Setiap pemeluk agama berhak untuk membangun rumah ibadat
dan melaksanakan ibadat sesuai keyakinannya, yang merupakan bagian dari hak
asasi manusia.
     Di satu sisi pernyataan ini benar dan berupaya meletakkan ideal beragama di
tengah masyarakat plural. Namun di sisi lain juga menjadi absurt karena dengan
menolak syarat izin pendirian rumah ibadat yang  sudah ditetapkan pemerintah, justru
telah mengingkari sifat ketidak-terbatasan Tuhan—yang berizin atau tidak, memenuhi
syarat atau tidak—tidak terpengaruh olehnya. Ketidak-terbatasan Tuhan mestinya
akan membuka peluang cara beribadat baru kepada-Nya.
     Bahwa sekalipun ibadat harus mempunyai izin dengan tanda tangan ber-KTP dari
jemaah sebanyak 90 orang dan dari masyarakat sekitar 60 tanda tangan sesuai
syarat SPB, menjadi absurt jika disandingkan dengan sifat ke-Maha-an Tuhan tadi.
Izin memang bisa menghambat pendirian rumah ibadat dan pelaksanaan ibadat
dengan cara dan kebiasaan yang sudah berjalan. Tapi peraturan yang dirasakan
membatasi itu mestinya justru membuka cara beribadat baru yang tak habis-habisnya,
sesuai sifat-Nya yang Maha Tak Terbatas.
     Tidak ada alasan untuk mengatakan bahwa pendirian rumah ibadat dan
pelaksanaan ibadat terhambat soal izin di atas. Yang terhambat hanya pendirian
rumah ibadat dan pelaksanaan ibadat sebagai kebiasaan selama ini, namun tetap tak
terbatas dalam cara beribadat baru, yang bebas dari “terkondisikan” untuk meminta
izin seperti disyaratkan.
     Tuhan, rumah ibadat dan cara beribadat kepada-Nya bebas dari aturan politik
dan legitimasi sosial. Itu semua bukan soal perlu atau tidak perlu izin, tetapi memang
substansinya tidak mengenal izin karena sifatnya yang transenden, rohaniah, bahkan
imaniah yang undang-undang pun tidak bisa menjangkaunya.
     Dengan membuka wawasan dan kesadaran baru tentang sifat ke-maha-an
Tuhan, setiap upaya manusia untuk membatasi pendirian rumah ibadat (yang
notabene diyakini juga rumah untuk bertemu dengan Tuhan, bahkan “Rumah Tuhan”)
hanya menjadi penghambat kecil, bahkan akan tergerus oleh sifat Maha Tak
Terbatas. SPB tidak lagi dipandang sebagai hambatan karena Tuhan akan membuka
cara beribadat yang baru dan kreatif. Sebuah transformasi ibadat.

“Tuhan tanpa Rumah”
     Pasca penandatanganan SPB yang bisa dilakukan ialah membuka seluas
mungkin cara beragama baru yang tidak terbentur pada soal izin mendirikan rumah
ibadat. Dengan kata lain, upaya matematikanisasi kegiatan spiritual—dengan syarat
90 jemaat ber-KTP dan 60 orang lingkungan sekitar sebagai “baptis politik”
pemerintah dan “baptis sosial” warga sekitar—agar ibadat aman dan sah, perlu
disikapi dengan membuka pintu teologi baru atas pendirian “rumah Tuhan” dan
rutinitas beribadat kepada-Nya.
     Sebetulnya tidak ada yang hilang, sekalipun rumah ibadat tidak boleh didirikan
atau bahkan yang sudah berjalan ditutup. Meski rumah ibadat diidentikkan sebagai
“rumah Tuhan”, penutupan rumah ibadat tidak berarti “Tuhan kehilangan rumah”.
Justru sebaliknya, pendirian rumah ibadat termasuk pelanggaran dan penutupan
hanya karena tidak memenuhi syarat sehingga tidak berizin, mengingatkan kembali
tentang substansi “Tuhan tanpa rumah”.
     Meminjam terminologi Kristen, dimana Anak Manusia (baca: Tuhan) tidak punya
tempat untuk meletakkan kepala-Nya. Jangankan rumah ibadat, rumah-Nya, bantal
saja tak punya. Teologi “Tuhan tanpa rumah” ini justru membebaskan agama dan
umat untuk mencari cara ibadat yang  tak terbatasi oleh bangunan dan ritual-ritualnya.
     Rumah ibadat adalah seluruh alam semesta, yakni dimana saja dan ritual-ritual
peribadatan langsung terefleksikan pada keseharian hidup umat beragama dari hati,
pikiran ke perilaku sebagai jantung dan etalase ibadat itu sendiri. Selama ini telah
terjadi institusionalisasi ibadat, bahwa ibadat hanya dalam rumah ibadat saja, di luar
itu dianggap belum atau tidak melakukan ibadat.

Agama tanpa Tembok
     Dalam konteks agama, matematikanisasi izin pendirian dan kegiatan peribadatan
di dalamnya, justru membuka peluang lahirnya agama tanpa tembok (religion without
wall) sebagai konsekuensi teologi “Tuhan tanpa rumah”. Hal mana sejalan dengan
prinsip-prinsip universal agama bahwa agama bukan sekedar ditandai dengan
bangunan fisik atau ritual ibadat. Tetapi agama adalah organisme hidup, kumpulan
mereka yang percaya kepada yang transenden. Primary concern agama dalam hal ini
ialah manusia dalam hubungannya dengan Tuhannya, dan bukan semata tempat
ibadat dan simbol-simbol keagamaan.
     Dakwah agama dengan demikian juga tidak terbatas pada komunitas jemaah lokal
(at stated times), tetapi dengan terbebas dari sindrom pendirian rumah ibadat, agama
justru dibukakan ladang dakwah baru di mana saja. Sikap agama terhadap SPB yang
mensyaratkan pendirian rumah ibadat dengan demikian seharusnya disikapi
kebalikannya, yakni dengan menerima tanpa syarat (unconditional acceptance).
     Agama tanpa tembok dengan demikian menjadi visi dan cara baru beribadat. Ia
lebih mendorong praktek agama yang lebih inklusif dibanding sebelumnya yang tetap
mempertahankan etalase rumah ibadat, simbol dan ritual yang eksklusif.
     Inilah pokok terpenting dari polemik SPB. Tidak perlu dikhawatirkan bahwa SPB
akan melarang hak beribadah seseorang. Meski fenomena rumah ibadat ditutup
dengan alasan tidak memenuhi persyaratan SPB, hal ini justru menjadi batu penguji
tingkat keber-agama-an seseorang.
     Kita tahu bahwa memeluknya seseorang kepada suatu agama lebih karena
panggilan yang bersifat transenden yang diyakininya, bahwa dengan percaya kepada
agamanya inilah ia menjadi orang yang beruntung dan diselamatkan. Ini berarti
memeluk agama membutuhkan a Call (sebuah panggilan). Dengan tidak adanya
tempat beribadat, keber-agama-an seseorang justu dikondisikan untuk
mendahulukan a Call-nya (panggilan kepada agamanya) daripada sekedar
tersedianya a Wall (tembok rumah ibadat).
     Sisi postif SPB ialah kemungkinannya melahirkan pola keber-agama-an baru yang
kuat karena penekanan pada a Call dan bukan sekedar a Wall. Panggilan agama
yang tertoreh di relung hati yang paling dalam yang memancar pada kehidupan
sehari-hari dan bukan sekedar pergi ke rumah ibadat dengan mengusung simbol
agama dan ritualismenya yang rentan.


KOMPAS,
Sabtu, 3 Juni 2006 (halaman 14)

ROH YANG BERLAWANAN

THE OPPOSITE SPIRIT / ROH YANG BERLAWANAN
(MEMAKNAI KEMBALI KONSEP PEPERANGAN ROHANI)

   Berapa banyak diantara saudara yang merasa kasihan pada Daniel? Karena Dia
mentaati Tuhan, Daniel malang dilempar ke dalam liang singa penuh singa. Tetapi
Firman Tuhan mengatakan tidak ada satupun yang mencelakakan  hidup Daniel. Dia
dilindungi karena kepatuhannya pada Allah. (Daniel 6:23).
   Pada waktu pencobaan-pencobaan datang, bila kita memberikan reaksi dengan
benar, Tuhan menciptakan sesuatu yang indah melalui pencobaan itu. Dan reaksi
yang benar itu berasal dari pribadi yang menurut pada roh yang benar.

BERTINDAK DI DALAM ROH YANG BERLAWANAN

   Dalam Lukas 9, suatu desa menolak Yesus dan murid-muridNya, dikisahkan
Yakobus dan Yohanes memberikan reaksi dalam kemarahan. Yesus menegur
mereka karena mereka memerangi penolakan dengan penolakan. Dia berkata
kepada mereka, “Tidakkah kalian tahu dari Roh macam apakah kalian itu berasal …”
(sedemikian sampai kalian itu memerangi penolakan dengan penolakan, red) (Lukas
9:55, KJV, TEV). Dalam pasal 10 nya, Yesus mengutus murid-muridNya dengan
perkataan berikut: “Tuaian memang banyak, tetapi pekerja sedikit. Pergilah,
sesungguhnya Aku mengutus kamu seperti anak domba ke tengah-tengah serigala.”
   Jadi, dalam konteks memenangkan dunia di atas, seakan-akan Dia berkata, “Aku
mengutus kamu keluar di dalam roh kelemahlembutan untuk menghadapi roh
penyerangan.” Bagaimana, apakah Anda sudah dapat melihat betapa kedua ide di
atas berbicara hal yang sama?” Yesus berkata, “Pergilah, (bertindaklah, bereaksilah,
red) tetapi di dalam roh yang benar, yaitu Roh Anak Domba diantara serigala-
serigala tersebut”.
   Seringkali kita menghadapi perselisihan-perselisihan, situasi-situasi yang gawat.
Adalah mudah bagi kita untuk mengenakan roh yang ada di dalam perselisihan itu,
dan mencoba menghadapi situasi itu dengan roh yang sama. Tetapi hasilnya kita
tidak akan beranjak kemana-mana, melainkan tetap tinggal di dalam perselisihan itu.
Karena Yesus menginginkan kita untuk bertindak di dalam Roh-Nya.
   Bertindak dalam roh yang berlawanan, itu tidaklah berarti bahwa kita harus menjadi
raksasa-raksasa rohani. Melainkan merupakan suatu pernyataan bahwa kita benar-
benar perlu untuk memiliki suatu tempat perlindungan di dalam Tuhan. Sehingga bila
serangan datang, seperti halnya Daniel, kita akan menampakkan roh yang benar.
Kita akan dilindungi dan akan menjadi yang menang.

MENYEDIAKAN TEMPAT BUAT YESUS

   Mengapa Tuhan membiarkan kita berjalan melalui ujian dan pencobaan? Berapa
banyak dari saudara pernah berdoa, “Tuhan saya ingin seperti Yesus?” Doa ini
merupakan suatu undangan untuk dicobai.
   Pencobaan memang menyakitkan. Tetapi melalui pencobaan seakan ruang hati
kita direnggangkan lebih luas buat Yesus. Dia penuhi kita, lalu kemudian Dia berkata,
“Bagus, renggangkan lebih lagi”, atau dengan kata lain: “Bagus, tambahkan
pencobaan lebih lagi”. Yang penting adalah – bila pencobaan-pencobaan datang kita
perlu menanggapinya dengan roh yang berkebalikan/berlawanan.
   Kita tidak dapat berperang dengan senjata di dalam alam roh. Kita tidak dapat
melawan kegelapan dengan kegelapan. Yang perlu adalah: kita harus hidup dalam
roh Anak Domba di tengah-tengah serigala.

MELAWAN KEGELAPAN DENGAN TERANG

   Sebagai contoh, perhatikanlah pada roh beradu pendapat. Tidaklah salah apabila
kita beradu pendapat dengan orang lain. Tetapi seringkali kita melakukan itu dalam
roh yang salah: “Akulah yang benar dan kamu salah”. Dalam situasi ini, pendebat
yang tebaiklah yang akan menang. Tetapi sebenarnya kedua-duanya telah terbunuh
secara rohani.
   Berikut ini adalah beberapa hal yang perlu kita tanggapi dengan roh yang
berlawanan.
   Ketidaksetiaan : Orang-orang menikam kita dari belakang, lalu? Tutup saja
perkaranya, anggap hal itu selesai. Dan sebagai balasnya, kita tetap berlaku setia.
   Keangkuhan : Daripada berlaku keras kepala dan sombong sebagai balasnya,
kita perlu merendahkan hati. Kerendahan hati selalu mempermalukan keangkuhan.
   Penipuan : Jika kita merasa seseorang ingin memanfaatkan kita, kita perlu
bertindak di dalam roh seorang hamba. Lain dari itu, Allah tidak akan melindungi kita,
karena kita sedang mencoba melindungi diri kita sendiri.
   Ketakutan : Roh Kristus adalah roh kasih dan percaya. Satu hal yang saya
temukan: orang yang aku takuti adalah orang yang tidak beroleh kasih dariku.
Cobalah mengingat-ingat seseorang, atau sekelompok orang yang engkau takuti.
Ketakutan itu sangat mungkin timbul karena engkau kurang kasih terhadap mereka.
   Penolakan : Oleh karena orang-orang menolak kita, maka kita juga menolak
mereka sebagai balasnya. Yang perlu dilakukan sesungguhnya adalah memberikan
balasan kasih dan penerimaan.
   Prasangka : Lawan dari ini adalah terima dia sepenuhnya, tanpa mengingat-ingat
prasangkanya atasmu.
   Berikut ini ada beberapa pekerjaan rumah: buatlah suatu daftar konflik-konflik
yang sedang engkau hadapi. Mungkin engkau punya cerita tentang suatu konflik
yang sama yang berulang-ulang kali engkau hadapi. Bertanyalah kepada Tuhan,
“Roh apakah sesungguhnya yang sedang bekerja dalam situasi ini? Bagaimana aku
harus bertindak untuk menanggapinya dalam roh yang berlawanan?”.
   Hidup kita seharusnya mengakibatkan orang datang kepada Allah. Tetapi bila
sebaliknya mengakibatkan orang menjauhi Allah, maka kita harus memeriksa diri:
bagaimana cara kita selama ini menangani konfrontasi/pecobaan.
   Sama sekali tidak ada gunanya mengutuki kegelapan yang terlihat di sekitar kita.
Sebaliknya, Yesus memanggil kita untuk menjadi terang bagi dunia – dengan kata
lain, menjadi seekor anak domba di tengah-tengah kawanan serigala.
   Peperangan rohani bukanlah sekedar menengking dan menghardik musuh.
Seringkali hal tersebut tidak efektif karena musuh tidak gentar hanya dengan teriakan
kita melainkan hidup dan roh kita yang berbeda dengan karakter dan roh musuh kita.
Gaya hidup berzinah tidak akan dapat menghalau roh perzinahan. Gereja yang korup
dan tidak jujur tidak akan dapat memenangkan bangsa yang korup. Orang Kristen
yang tidak penuh kasih tidak akan pernah merebut dunia yang penuh kebencian.
Semua itu karena roh yang sama. Benar-benar harus menjadi anak domba saat
berada di tengah-tengah serigala. Rubahlah kegelapan menjadi terang. Pada
dasarnya kegelapan tidak akan pergi hanya dengan kita menyuruhnya pergi.
   Sepertinya memang konsep peperangan rohani kita perlu dimaknai lagi atau
bahkan diredefinisi.


                                             - CORNELIUS WING -