Apostolic Envy

angry preacherA couple of years ago, Steve Johnson asked to meet with our church staff to help hammer out a response to several pastors in our group who were experiencing what can only be described as “Apostolic envy”.  Since other organizations have begun handing out the title of “apostle” to their pastors, the pastors in our fellowship wondered why our group did not use the title as well.

So, after calling several friends in the ministry and taking good notes, we met at the Casa del Taco for breakfast to brainstorm the use of the title “apostle”.  Since this topic has come up in emails to me several times over the last few weeks, I thought my notes from our breakfast meeting would be helpful.

This account of our breakfast lunch is lengthy, but is by no means comprehensive…

In attendance were Dad, Beto Garay, Jerry Salmeron, Steve, and Bro. Irving Gillette (I called Cam and he informed me that his dad was in town and “whatever he believes, I believe.”)  It was great to have Bro. Gillette’s experience and wisdom from Canada to Mexico over many years.

The meeting was interesting and informative.  Everyone shared their thoughts, and we kicked around many different concepts and matrixes and points of view.

ORLANDO SUMMIT ON FIVE-FOLD MINISTRIES

Jerry had brought the conclusions of an Orlando Summit on the Five-fold ministries called “A Call for Accountability” that involved many nationally acclaimed charismatic and pentecostal preachers (Hayford, Haggard, C. Peter Wagner, Joyce Meyer, John Bevere, Rick Joyner, Steve Hill, etc.), which we read.

Each person shared their thoughts about the statement, then we went to the Bible and gave our opinions as to the Biblical view of the Apostle.

FOUNDING PIONEER/CHURCH PLANTER/FATHER FIGURE

All of us seemed to agree that the Apostle is a founding pioneer who plants churches, then functions as a “father figure” to the new congregations he himself has planted.  He is a servant leader, not one who is drunk on authority.

Some of our conclusions could not help but be reactionary, because of the new emphasis, especially in charismatic circles, on Apostolic leadership.

Steve said that he had finished reading a popular book — “Moving in the Apostolic” by John Eckhardt, and he had been bothered by not seeing servanthood mentioned at all, while authority was mentioned repeatedly.  Steve said that in the life of Jesus, He repeatedly told the disciples that in the world, “leaders Lord it over one another, but among you, this not ought to be — whoever wants to lead, must be the servant of all.” and that whenever the disciples grasped for authority and position, Jesus rebuked them.  It bothered Steve that some embracing the current Apostlic trend seem to over-emphasize Apostolic authority to the detriment of servanthood and suffering.  Steve mentioned also that it bothered him that money also seemed to be a factor that kept coming up, but in this context, it is being called, “Kingdom Investments”. — “Follow the money, and it usually ends up in somebody’s pocket, and that somebody is usually a “Governing Apostle”.”

Brother Gillette mentioned that the church is distracted so easily onto side issues that take our focus off of winning the lost and planting churches, and that if someone says he is an Apostle who is busy doing those things, that’s fine, but keep the focus on what’s important.  “I personally am uncomfortable with the title; I’ve always been a helper.” — Dad responded that he considered Bro. Gillette to have an apostolic ministry — Bro. Gillette smiled uncomfortably and repeated the previous statement.

I brought up the fact that the Ephesians 4 ascension gift ministries are horizontal, not hierarchical; in other words, just as a plumber, electrician and drywall man all function differently, no one is greater than the other.  Someone mentioned that Paul stated in Corinthians that “God gave first Apostles…”, and my response to that was that “first” refers to the Apostle’s function.  Since he is a pioneer/church planter, he goes “first”, just like a blocking back in football clears the way for the running back.  Neither one is a bigger “hot shot”; each just fulfill different functions.  In many groups today, the title of “Apostle” just seems to be “more exotic” and more “exciting” than the other, more standard titles.

TITLE, TITLE, WHO’S GOT A TITLE?

In my phone conversation with Trevor, he mentioned that it irritates him when ministers come in and insist on being referred to by their titles (Dr., Bishop, Pastor, Apostle).  “What about being a servant?  What about being a regular guy?”  This is a point that has annoyed me for years.  I have one friend whose wife even calls him “Pastor”.  Can you imagine Esther calling me “Pastor Jim”?  In Spanish, we avoid all this by calling each other, “Hermano”.

Bro. Gillette added that the danger becomes the danger the church faced in the first century, that we appoint somebody as the big cheese and authority starts flowing down and BAM, we’ve got ourselves a new Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Beto voiced the opinion that to many, the title “Apostle” just sounds flashier than “Pastor” or “Teacher”, and it seems to be the latest pentecostal “fad”…”everybody’s got to have an Apostle in their movement to keep up with the next group”.

Jerry then reminded everyone that the Apostle is one of the Ephesians 4 grouping, so it has to be more than a “fad”…maybe the way it’s being lifted up and exalted today is a “fad” but not the office or function itself.

I then read off a bunch of information I got off the Global World Breakthrough Network website, a group that several of my friends in California have joined, promising an “Apostolic Reformation”.  This group is led by Noel Woodruffe and is set up in an “Apostolic Kingdom” matrix.  Some of the vocabulary used on the website is unique and can be a little complicated and wordy, and uses a lot of corporate terminology i.e. “a global synergy of Kingdom initiatives”, but it basically boils down to a “a total restructuring of the global church making obsolete the present shapes and emphases” — “a radical movement away from dead religious tradition and local church limitation to a Kingdom reality that invades every aspect of life”, “a bringing back to effective recognition and operation of prophets and apostles…”

WHAT ABOUT SIMPLICITY?

My tendency is to hunger for simplicity when confronted with something so radically layered.  Also, when a group implies that the current church as a whole is a failure that needs to be radically reformed and “reshuffled”, it always makes me smile and think of the hundreds of souls being saved here in McAllen, the revival happening all over Mexico in these “un-restructured” churches, my own experience when I received Christ as Savior in (gasp) an Alliance Church, seeing so many effective and Godly leaders of different denominations advance the Kingdom…it just seems so pretentious to proclaim that a particular group is here to “restructure and radically renovate” our mentality.

Anyway, no one was that impressed or horrified by what was read.  The guys I know in this group are Godly men who are not mental midgets and are definitely nobody’s puppet either.  In fairness, I only talked briefly to Chris Copp and a quick midnight chat with Keith, so I need to have a more in-depth conversation.

APOSTOLIC GIFTS ARE FUNCTIONING/TITLE IS A CURRENT FAD

In conclusion and after much discussion, most of us agreed that Apostolic gifts are in operation today in the church, but are part of the rest of the ministries and gifts, not greater or lesser in importance.  We also agreed that this seems to be a hot topic right now, just as “spiritual warfare” was in the 90’s, “dancing and banners” were in the 80’s, “falling and laughing” were for several years, and “The Prayer of Jabez” was for about 5 years.  Our job as ministers is not to get “blown about by every wind of doctrine” but to stay balanced whichever direction the wind is currently blowing.  Take the good….leave the bad…

Most men who function as Apostles don’t even use the title or care two hoots about the title anyway…In the end, the title “apostle” means “sent out”.

Bro. Gillette told Steve that a solid definition of exactly what an “Apostle” is would answer a lot of questions, and, depending how each group answers that question, the function and office will flow out naturally.  Good point.

Anyway, it was a fun, productive discussion. 

Jim,
Bishop Emeritus, High Chancellor of Power for the Hour

16 Responses to Apostolic Envy

  1. Rob Johnson says:

    Jim asked me for my thoughts.

    Here are Danker’s definitions (one of the standard lexicons)
    1. “of messengers without extraordinary status, delegate, envoy, messenger”
    John 13.16
    Phil 2.25
    2 Cor 8.23

    2. “of messengers with extrordinary status, esp. of God’s messenger, envoy”
    a) “of prophets”–Lk 11.49; Rv 18.20; Eph 3.5

    b) “of Christ”–Heb 3.1

    c) “but predominantly in the NT . . . of a group of highly honored believers w. a special function as God’s envoys”

    Okay, enough of Danker.

    I think Watchman Nee made this helpful distinction (the first 3):

    1. The Apostle of the Father–Jesus (Heb 3.1)

    2. The apostles of the Lamb–the 12 (Rev 21.14)
    Acts 1 gives their requirements–being with Jesus during His whole ministry–from His baptism to His ascension. So, they are totally exclusive. Paul certainly could not have been one of those.
    They had a unique founding and witnessing role. Not replicable. Their authority was “universal,” unlike any other subsequent apostle.

    3. The apostles of the Spirit–Acts 13.2,4.

    No requirement of having seen Jesus. (I believe the first 3 questions of 1 Cor 9.1 are independent of each other. None depends on the other.) I think their chief function is preaching the gospel and church planting–1 Cor 9.2. The Corinthians were the seal of Paul’s apostleship. If someone claims to be an apostle, my first question is how many churches he has planted. Similarly, an apostle’s authority extends only to those churches he has founded. Paul didn’t take authority in churches he did not plant. The analogy Paul uses is of a father (1 Cor 4.16). A father only has authority over his own children. The only exceptions were his letters to the Colossians (probably founded by someone taught by Paul in Ephesus, Epaphras?) and Romans. He wrote to Rome to prepare them for his coming visit and to teach them doctrine, but doesn’t give instructions like he did to the Corinthians about the man living with his step-mother.

    4. (This classification is my own invention)–the apostles of the churches–2 Cor 8.23. These fit into Danker’s meaning #1–messengers, envoys, delegates, etc.

    It seems like the two main underlying ideas regarding apostles are:

    1) Being sent

    2) Having a particular commission (whether from God, from Christ Himself, or from a certain church for a particular task.

    The paramaters (geographic, task and authority) for any apostle depend on the one(s) doing the sending–Where or to whom was he sent? What was the commission given?

  2. Carl Johnson says:

    After talking to Jim about this subject I read a little bit in 1 & 2 Corinthians and had some other thoughts. I really haven’t studied the subject in depth, but certainly have thought about it over the years. I doubt I’ll give any more info or insight than any of you have, but I thought it would be fun to at least write down my reflections. (I’d hate for you to be without them!)

    “preach the gospel” –

    This seems to be a key component of apostleship. Paul repeats it over and over in many places (Gal. 2:7; Eph. 3:8) , but I was impressed at how much he mentioned it in the Corinthian passages about his ministry (1 Cor. 9:16; 2 Cor. 11:7). Obviously, it was the key component of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 4:18, 43) (apart from the cross), and it was the principal activity he sent the 12 out to do (Luke 9:2).

    In Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Cor. 3 Paul talks about the work of an apostle being foundational, and also building, starting in new territory. (His authority was for building up – 2 Cor. 10:8.) It is a pioneering ministry.

    So, the apostle’s first function is to preach to the lost, and, as a result, there are converts. He talked about the Corinthians being the seal of his apostleship (1 Cor. 9:2). Someone who only ministers to the church doesn’t seem to me to be a genuine apostle. They may be teachers or prophets, but not apostles.

    “original apostles”

    – these had seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8) and received special, foundational revelation. These are not repeated. They are part of the foundation mentioned in Ephesians. But I believe there are apostles today, but without these two qualities, although they definitely have a special call.

    Suffering.

    Although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to imply in 1 Cor. 4:9 & 2 Cor. 11 that suffering for the gospel is a sign of his genuine apostleship. And it would seem logical that if your ministry is to go into “enemy” territory to reach the lost and establish beachheads, there would be lots of opposition of all kinds.

    signs & wonders –

    Paul specifically calls these the mark of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12).

    So, to quote John Wimber, “An apostle is as an apostle does.” If someone wants to claim to be an apostle, lets see the converts, the churches & the leaders, (and the healings, the suffering too).

    Sent

    something about being sent to a specific group or region. This is clear from the word itself, from the way Jesus “sent” his apostles out to do their work. There’s no record of Paul exerting his apostolic authority at Alexandria, even though he had significant ministry there. He was sent out from there to be an apostle, to fulfill his calling. (Even though he had been called from the beginning to be an apostle.) I read something about the Jewish use of the term apostle. It had to do with and ambassadorial, representative kind of function. In some ways similar to what Paul was doing when he went to Damascus with “papers” before his conversion.

    Difference between evangelists and apostles.

    But evangelists also preach the gospel. Seems that evangelists only preach the gospel (and heal, etc.), while apostles do this but then also develop disciples, leaders and churches. Paul talks about presenting everyone perfect in Christ, having Christ formed in them and his continual concern (“I’m not worried”) about all the churches. Even after leaving the churches he was concerned about their ongoing development and felt this was part of his calling.

    Weirdo apostles, sidekick apostles and missionary statesmen.

    The more I reflected on it, the more I saw that the guys who seem to talk so much today about apostles in their movements, or themselves being apostles, have more in common with the guys Paul called false apostles in 2 Cor. 10-12. They came into churches others had started. (Paul implies that his apostleship and authority is limited to those he himself had won – 1 Cor. 9:2) They wanted money. They compared themselves to others and made a big deal about their ministry. They were all concerned about getting authority over others. Kind of scary for these people when you think about it.

    Paul’s authority was natural, not imposed. It came from having won them to Christ, or at the very least having a deep influence over them.

    I don’t see the whole hierarchical thing. That an apostle can just come in and demand tithes and exert authority anywhere and everywhere.

    Wow, the more I read, the more I realize that Paul said a lot about being an apostle. Too much to continue here.

    Are there people who have a temporary apostleship? Are there apostolic teams? Are there different kinds of apostles today? (There seem to be a wide variety of types of pastors, spheres of influence, etc.)

    I remember reading in Grudem’s book on prophecy that he believes the apostles were / are kind of the replacement of the OT office of prophet because of their authority and revelation.

    Who would you consider to be apostles? (historically or currently) Patrick. Wesley. Carey. How about guys who have started megachurches like Rick Warren or Bill Hybels?

  3. Robbie Evans says:

    The apostleship problem has been raging in central and southern Mexico for the last three or four years.

    Its principal fountains of introduction have been from Guatemala and Colorado Springs. Peter Wagner etc. Although they speak of the restoration of the apostolic ministry, the only true restoration there has been is the restoration to their understanding that apostles exist today. I would have a hard time believing that neither Luther nor Wesley were apostolic.

    Although we have always believed that all of the five ministries in Eph. 4 are for today, nevertheless, Mexico, and Latin America have been inundated with false apostles. They seek to set themselves over the church, preying on the insecurity of many pastors, demand an absolute authority as well as tithes and offerings. It all revolves around power and money. Many of those who have falsely claimed this ministry, thus exalting themselves, are falling into false doctrine and immorality.

    I recently went to speak at a conference where several who were present claimed this position for themselves. The two spirits that stuck out to me were power and importance. I felt very grieved and bound in my spirit.

    Recently I heard of an “apostle” who called a pastor out in a meeting and told him that there was sin in his life. He then ordered him to take off his shirt so that he could whip him and beat the sin out of him. I could tell you even nuttier stories.

    Last year Ralph Mahoney, Victor Richards, and myself went to a certain city in southern Mexico to do a conference. Two gentlemen had been fighting for some time over the title of “apostle of the city”. Ralph preached three times on true apostleship and set some things straight. Victor Richards spoke last October in Puebla on the problem of false apostles. I have been selling and giving away the CDs to whoever is interested.

    David Edwards of Elim said several years ago, “the first indicator that one is NOT an apostle is that he tells you he is”.

    Wayne Meyers observation has been that “some peoples business card is bigger than their ministries”.

    Last January we were in a certain city eating dinner with a pastor and his wife, when suddenly another gentleman and his wife walked in and sat down with us. After a few minutes he notified us that he was an apostle. The longer we listened the more we realized that, he had never pastored successfully, but rather had flopped twice, and also that the woman that he was with was not his first wife. He seemed intent on convincing us of his apostolic ministry. So as not to get into a fight we left. It was a spirit of control, but not apostolic authority.

    Steve is right about John Eckharts book. I saw him a couple of years ago in a conference and there was no spirit of servanthood.

    Jesus said that whoever exalts himself will be abased. Ten years from now the great majority of these apostolic and prophetic ministries will be in the gutter. It’s all going to come down.

    If you want a close up of it all, go to Monterrey, and check out Richard Hayes at Comunidad Cristiana. He has declared himself an apostle and now is teaching false doctrine. The righteousness of God. He is a classic case. He has also been expert at picking off pastors from other groups and bringing them under his apostolic authority.

  4. Winston says:

    My concern in Honduras is that they are preaching that a church has to have an apostle, and it seems to be tied into a submission teaching, where the local leaders no longer have the authority commensurate with their responsibility. I see the apostle as an advisory role based on experience broader than the local church. In Argentina we have some (so-called and possibly self-apponted) apostles jacking churches around and defrocking preachers. Most of those with a real apostolic role don’t do that.

    Apostles also seem to have a role in the supervision of appointing elders in the local church. I observe that people who want to call themselves apostles usually aren’t.

    I’m also concerned that a group of national leaders called themselves the supreme council of apostles and prophets, and wrote directions for the rest of us poor paeons.

  5. was finally able to talk to Davie at some length yesterday on the phone.

    Davie said that his position, and that of the Global World Breakthrough Network, is that the Apostle is a “master builder” according to Scripture. This means that his job is to come in and look at the blueprint of your church, study how it is functioning, and make sure it is built and functioning properly. “Not just a guy who comes in and gives you two good meetings and collects a check, but a man who comes in and spends time personally with you and your leaders and really gets to know what’s going on so he can better advise you.”

    Davie also mentioned that the Bible says that the church is built on a foundation of “Apostles” and “Prophets” with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. “In the late ’40’s, our movement experienced the restoration of the prophets, and we have a lot of that going on, but we still lacked the apostles.”

    Asked about the wacky stories, Davie responded, “Anytime God does something new, there is no end of abuse and counterfeits popping up…but that doesn’t negate reality of what God is doing.”

    I asked him about http://www.globalharvest.org (C. Peter Wagner’s group) and he said, “He is appointing people he doesn’t even know as apostles. Just send in your check, and you, too can be an apostle in his network. All his spiritual warfare experts from the last decade have changed their business card to read “Apostle.” It’s sad. In our Apostolic Reformation, there are no papers to sign and no money to send. It is all relationship oriented.”

  6. Brad Ost says:

    Crushed, just crushed that I was not immediately called to render my verdict upon this topic. Why am I not the first person you call? After all, I have the authority – the power – yea verily the very ear of God from whom all my pronouncements come.

    Come, sit at my knee and let me instruct you. :-))))

    Didn’t you want a non charismatic, Pentecostal view?

    Am glad to expound on this view at any time. But I don’t think there are anymore Scriptural Apostles around – nor have there been since Paul. I’ve kept up on this apostle movement and the establishment of “super apostles.” I wanted to cry. All I could think was Cha – Ching. Someone new is fleecing the flock. Breaks my heart.

    I believe the Gift of Apostle was a foundational gift, and that Paul was the last. I don’t think Eph 4:11 can alone decide the question in favor of those who believe in present day Apostles. My view is multi faceted and multi Scriptured (?) if you want to get into it.

    Love you guys

  7. Carl Johnson says:

    Are there apostles today? Or the other question is, was apostleship limited to the 11 and Paul?

    Many say that one of the distinguishing marks of those original apostles was, as Brad said, that they “carried the imprimatur of infallible inspiration in their writing and speaking through the Holy Spirit.” If this is the case, if one of their chief functions was to write infallibly to the church, you would expect to see writings from all of them. Actually, we have writings from only 4! Paul, Peter, Matthew & John. Where are the writings of the rest of them? (Or do you accept the Gospel of Thomas?) If this was one of their principle commissions, why don’t we hear more from the rest? I guess they missed their chance.

    Also, why do we have so many non-apostles contributing to the NT (Mark, at best a failed side-kick apostle, Luke, who had no ministry credentials whatsoever, only that he had traveled with Paul, but who probably never actually saw Jesus, then James, Jude and the writer to the Hebrews)? These writers contributed a huge chunk of writing to the NT. You would think it would have been limited to the infallible apostles. (And I guess their infallibility fails at a certain point in Peter since he resisted the whole gentile thing while in Ceserea, and then really blew it in Antioch.)

    So, I think that the whole idea that one of the chief commissions of the NT apostles was infallible inspiration in their writings is not substantiated by Scripture itself. It appears that God chose who he wanted to be writers of the NT, some apostles, some not, just as he had done in the Old Testament, but that it wasn’t something directly tied to being an apostle.

    Also, what about the fact that Paul says the church was founded not only the apostles but also on the prophets (Eph. 2:20)? And that God had revealed the mystery of the gospel to the prophets (3:5)? They appear not to be apostles, but were communicating from God to the early church. Or is he just calling apostles prophets? But if apostleship implies this infallibility, why add the title of prophet?

    These were some divine revelations I had driving in the snow on the way to work today. Your thoughts???

  8. Rob Johnson says:

    It has been interesting reading everyone’s thoughts.

    A couple more things:

    1) The fact that James is called an apostle does make me rethink a bit my “church planter” idea of apostle. I’ll keep munching.

    2) To be Reformed (or Calvinist, I know they are not identical terms) is not necessarily to be cessationist, even though most are. I know a guy here who is Calvinist (I believe also Reformed), but whose group believes that the gifts of the Spirit are for today.

    3) Apostleship in the NT was not linked with having seen Christ risen, except in the case of the Twelve, who had to not only have seen Christ risen, but also have followed Him from His baptism to His ascension. Paul definitely was not one of the Tweleve. I think it helps in this discussion to separate the Twelve from other apostles. The Twelve were unique and non-replicable.

  9. Brad Ost says:

    Hi Guys

    I don’t know if you read my thoughts as well because Jim said he wasn’t going to let any cessationist propaganda poison the well. And thus I was censured, like Tyndale at the stake, Love under the blade of the executioner and, dare I say it, Paul under the teeth of that saw. But I will be silent no longer! :-))

    Don’t know what #1 was about and I agree with you on #2. But on # 3 I’d have to say that definitely one link in the Apostle chain was that they must have seen, personally encountered, Christ after the resurrection. I think the NT makes the case clearly and that Paul too was of the apostles among whom were the 12. Now I’m willing to substantiate this … i.e. illuminate you all (and here’s the pathway of that transmission –God’s mouth –Brad’s Ear — Brad’s mouth — your ears), if you have the time.😉

    Love you all

  10. Carl Johnson says:

    Actually, my contention is that the twelve are unique in some ways (their direct contact with Jesus from baptism to ascension, their replacement of the 12 children of Israel), but in other ways all apostles which come later have the principle things in common with them – the preaching of the gospel, the pioneering work, the establishment of churches, the suffering. So, I don’t see why they need to be completely removed from the discussion (or maybe I misunderstood you, Bishop Robert).

  11. Steve Johnson says:

    I’ve been listening to the discussion.

    Good to be engaging with each other.

    I work with Don McCurry who is a staunch Presbyterian, 77 years old, founded the Zwemer Institute (first at Fuller, now at Columbia), then the Summer Institute of Muslim Studies which continues in Colorado Springs and now, in addition, training Latin Americans to work in the Muslim world through IIbET in the Spanish and Portugese parts of the world. He is post-millenial and also believes that the gifts of the Spirit are for today. Very interesting guy. He’s never personally spoken in tongues, but other gifts do show . . .

    Once we get to heaven I’m sure the Lord will clear matters up. Perhaps definitions are the real issue . . . Missionary is simply the English transliteration of the Latin word for apostle — “one sent on a mission with the authority of the sender”. We certainly don’t blink at using the word today. In many branches of the church we have tended to limit the use of the word apostle to The Twelve and Paul, but linguistically (se Baur Arndt and Gingrich as well as Thayer and the TDNT articles) it does seem to have been used in a wider sense for men sent by God with his backing on “a mission”, but without the authority or the original foundation setting mission for the whole church that “The Twelve” had.

  12. Rob Johnson says:

    Gentlemen,

    I continue to enjoy reading the responses.

    Carl, good thoughts, that the Twelve were not wholly different from other apostles. But, they are the only ones with their names on the foundations of the New Jerusalem. 🙂

    Steve, your definition is right on, I believe.

  13. Matt S says:

    I guess for those who would like to refer to themselves as “Apostles” I would have to ask what is the motive?

    If you are already doing the work of an apostle as defined by Scripture and other reference tools why do you need the title? The title will not change anything in regards to your ministry.

    For me, I have a hard time believing that those who are angling to be called apostles have any other motive than one that is self-serving.

    Just let your work and faith do the talking and leave the titles at the door.

  14. gospelordeath says:

    I don’t even know where to begin.

  15. Echo, that may just be your shortest post ever.

  16. I will say that I think this emphasis on “apostles” does continue an unfortunate trend in charismatic circles of having to be in on the “next big thing”. For a while it was dancing/banners, then it was “spiritual warfare/mapping”, then “deliverance”, then “laughing and falling” and on and on.

    Many want to be on the “cutting edge” of every new Christian fad, and it really hurts our testimony with the world and other Christians. We should not give up our solidarity with the Apostle Paul in the use of ALL the spiritual gifts, but we should never get our eyes off the main task, which is to preach the Gospel and disciple people of all nations. Let’s keep the focus on JESUS on off titles and fads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: