I do find that Question and Answer sessions often are often uniquely different to sermons or lectures because the speakers are reacting with little or no preparation. I hope that this transcript proves a useful resource to anyone who reads it.
The Pre-Dales Bible Week 1977 Conference at High Leigh
With Dr Ern Baxter, Arthur Wallis and Bryn Jones.
Bryn Jones:
With Dr Ern Baxter, Arthur Wallis and Bryn Jones.
Bryn Jones:
So the first question is of the plurality of apostles. Does not 1 Corinthians 1 indicate that Paul, Apollos and Cephas all had input into the Corinthian church? If we claim to be under one apostle, are we not in danger of; “I am of Cephas, I am of Apollos …” etc? Now … do any of you brethren immediately want to answer or do I hand it …? (*laughter*).
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
It is interesting that I made some comment to Arthur after his remarks this morning on this very matter. I think if you take that passage in context, take the entire epistle and put the matter of Apollos, Cephas and Paul into the contextual setting of that epistle you will find that what Paul affirms is that there are many instructors, they have many who are making input – but he was the father, he was the authority. In 2nd Corinthians 10 he said; “My sphere of authority reaches even to you – you are a body under my authority”. Now also it indicates that he was not concerned that Peter should come and make input or that Apollos should make input or that other legitimate recognised ministries should make input but was chiding the people because they were following these other ministries and making problems for them by putting them in the wrong slot.
So I think there’s a two-way adjustment here; a clear affirmation of his apostolic authority over Corinth and an adjustment to be made in them (among many adjustments) in that they did not appreciate the singularity of his authority and were elevating Cephas and Apollos to the same peer group level. And thirdly Paul was not afraid of Apollos and Cephas – he was more concerned about how the people were handling the structure of apostolic authority. But I think the other apostles made … and I might say on a practical level that in America where some of us have authority into an area we have a clear understanding among ourselves who has the leadership authority into that area. Then there is no problem of the other brothers coming in. If I go into an area where Bob Mumford has authority for example, then I go in subject to Bob Mumford to serve him in the sphere of his authority and vice versa.
Bryn Jones:
So I think there’s a two-way adjustment here; a clear affirmation of his apostolic authority over Corinth and an adjustment to be made in them (among many adjustments) in that they did not appreciate the singularity of his authority and were elevating Cephas and Apollos to the same peer group level. And thirdly Paul was not afraid of Apollos and Cephas – he was more concerned about how the people were handling the structure of apostolic authority. But I think the other apostles made … and I might say on a practical level that in America where some of us have authority into an area we have a clear understanding among ourselves who has the leadership authority into that area. Then there is no problem of the other brothers coming in. If I go into an area where Bob Mumford has authority for example, then I go in subject to Bob Mumford to serve him in the sphere of his authority and vice versa.
Bryn Jones:
Amen … so it is generally agreed I think that they all had input – many apostles. But Paul had – and each church needs to know who had the authority (governmentally) towards them. And although that shouldn’t close the door to others, it should be clearly understood and all the other inputs coming in shouldn’t be in conflict with that governmental authority to them and neither should the church begin to divide in factions among those men.
So the next question. It says, “In 1 Corinthians 16:12, was this a disagreement between equals or was a submitted man in disagreement with someone over him?”. This of course was what Paul wanted Apollos to do in coming down. 1 Corinthians 16:12. Was this a disagreement between equals or was a submitted man in disagreement with a man over him?
Arthur Wallis:
So the next question. It says, “In 1 Corinthians 16:12, was this a disagreement between equals or was a submitted man in disagreement with someone over him?”. This of course was what Paul wanted Apollos to do in coming down. 1 Corinthians 16:12. Was this a disagreement between equals or was a submitted man in disagreement with a man over him?
Arthur Wallis:
I think it’s difficult to be dogmatic about this – but may I just point out to you the wording here is significant, where he says; “I strongly urged”. Now Paul sometimes suggested, sometimes gave his judgement as one that obtained mercy to be faithful. Sometimes he commanded; “I send Timothy to you”. There was that note of command. Now here to me, I have always interpreted this as being conviction that Paul had of Apollos’ ministry at that particular time and how it would be beneficial to the Corinthians hence he expresses this conviction. So he urges him and then is happy to leave him and the issue with the Lord – this suggests that Apollos was not subject to Paul’s authority.
Bryn Jones:
Does anyone else want to add to that?
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
I would just like to say one thing. I think Arthur Wallis touched on something this morning that was important also and that is that there is a fear across the world of authoritarianism replacing spiritual and moral authority. I think this is one of the Scriptures that indicates that on a peer group level, there is ample room for dialogue and interaction and that there is no super-imposition of a will over the will of a peer – that there is peer group. I think the Quakers have something to give us in this. The two can’t be right. If we are animated by the one Spirit – the result of our interaction should be some kind of unanimity as to what we should do.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Yes … the brethren feel we should give opportunity for any of you that want to come back on a question should have the chance to do so. Particularly let’s return to that first question. “Does not 1 Corinthians 1 indicate that Paul, Apollos and Cephas all had input – if we claim to be under one apostle, are we not in danger of “I am of Cephas”, “I am of Apollos”. Now you have heard the replies of those here. Is there anything that you want to come back on about that question?
Delegate:
Delegate:
I was just thinking that is not the secret of the whole thing in the relationship between the apostles? Paul, evidently was not the apostle who fathered the church in Rome and yet he had such a relationship with whoever the apostle was that he felt free to say to them; “I want to come to you to impart some spiritual gift”. He also felt free to write an epistle with the strength of Romans behind it. Yet he himself evidently was not the founding father of that church. So there must have been such a relationship between him and whoever the apostle – the founder of the church at Rome was – that he felt free to do that.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Yes. I think that’s what one was saying – that Paul, Apollos and Cephas all respected each other. I mean Paul was glad of Apollos’ input at Corinth and he was urging him to go there. As Bill pointed out, I don’t think the apostles had the problems. Paul’s trying to get to grips with the problems that others had with the apostles on this thing. Anyone else want to come back directly on that first question? Fine. And likewise the question; “Was this a disagreement between equals – concerning Paul and Apollos now – or was this a disagreement of a submitted man with the man over him?”. As pointed out, it was really Paul’s sense of the need at Corinth and his urging of Apollos to come into it. Yet we have no evidence that it was Apollos under Paul. Now are you happy with these things?
Now obviously it can be idealistic just to look at the New Testament and see it clear there as principles. But we are all aware of the grotty situation the church is in today with Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Elim and all the rest which they didn’t have around at that time. In accepting the principles of Arthur Wallis’s talk this morning, how can leaders who are already under an alternative covering (for example Anglican or R.C bishop) move under God towards interpreting them? Assuming someone who is in an Anglican or a Catholic church accepts the principles that Arthur shared this morning how can they apply the principles or walk in the light of them in the situation they exist where they are with these principles? Now that I think is much more down to earth with our situation over here! Now Ern, out of your relationship with the Roman Catholics especially are you able to speak into that?
Ern Baxter:
Now obviously it can be idealistic just to look at the New Testament and see it clear there as principles. But we are all aware of the grotty situation the church is in today with Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Elim and all the rest which they didn’t have around at that time. In accepting the principles of Arthur Wallis’s talk this morning, how can leaders who are already under an alternative covering (for example Anglican or R.C bishop) move under God towards interpreting them? Assuming someone who is in an Anglican or a Catholic church accepts the principles that Arthur shared this morning how can they apply the principles or walk in the light of them in the situation they exist where they are with these principles? Now that I think is much more down to earth with our situation over here! Now Ern, out of your relationship with the Roman Catholics especially are you able to speak into that?
Ern Baxter:
A group of Catholic priests met last year who were concerned with this very thing because with their new charismatic dimension they were finding problems in authority structures. But they wanted to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authority structures and yet they did not want to cool off in their charismatic dimension. So they got together and they came up with (what I thought) was rather an insight. They differentiated between ecclesiastical appointing and spiritual anointing. They said that they were not mutually exclusive. They said an ecclesiastically appointed man could be anointed. An anointed man did not necessarily need to be anointed. Now that did not resolve the question – but it gave them some guidelines and they said that coming out of the whole thing – I don’t know the meaning of the word Bryn has used “grotty” (*laughter*). He’s given me a synonym that I was going to use; “Messy”.
Coming up of these, I think we’ve got constantly keep in our minds that we’re coming up out of sub-normality. As we come out of sub-normality it is much easier to build a new house than it is to model a new one. In tearing down the “slums” to build a mansion, it’s a bit of a problem clearing the ground and I don’t think there are any “pat” answers. But I do believe that God is using a principle here that is obvious in the tree – the new sap comes up and forces out the old leaves and the new crop of leaves comes on. And going back to the David/Saul analogy – David never attacked Saul – but neither did he send back the defectors. (*laughter and applause*). So there was a movement of God going on and I think there’s a movement of God going on worldwide where spiritual authority is on the ascension and structural authority is on the decline. And we’ve got to be patient – move in wisdom, love and care – realising that we are coming out of sub normality.
I think a case in point is that in America I was concerned with particular denominational brethren that I felt I had a scope of ministry with them that was beyond their denomination. I felt that to serve the Kingdom of God, I felt that they would have done much better had they stepped out of their ecclesiastical structure to serve the larger body. Now that was purely on a charismatic basis at that point. They didn’t feel so and I was in no position to press them but what interested me and what gave me some answers was that along came the question of ordaining women. Now some who did not feel to come out on the charismatic issue - (*laughter*) – felt their conscience more exercised in that area. Then came the matter of ordaining homosexuals. I saw almost all of these men who didn’t come out on the charismatic issue, almost all came out on these two issues and so I said to the Lord; “Whatever cards have you got up Your sleeve next?!”. (*laughter*).
You see I believe brothers that we’ve got to be careful of one thing that we don’t let this thing get down into the methodological area and stay there – there has got to be a faith element that God’s got all kinds of surprises coming up.
Bryn Jones:
Coming up of these, I think we’ve got constantly keep in our minds that we’re coming up out of sub-normality. As we come out of sub-normality it is much easier to build a new house than it is to model a new one. In tearing down the “slums” to build a mansion, it’s a bit of a problem clearing the ground and I don’t think there are any “pat” answers. But I do believe that God is using a principle here that is obvious in the tree – the new sap comes up and forces out the old leaves and the new crop of leaves comes on. And going back to the David/Saul analogy – David never attacked Saul – but neither did he send back the defectors. (*laughter and applause*). So there was a movement of God going on and I think there’s a movement of God going on worldwide where spiritual authority is on the ascension and structural authority is on the decline. And we’ve got to be patient – move in wisdom, love and care – realising that we are coming out of sub normality.
I think a case in point is that in America I was concerned with particular denominational brethren that I felt I had a scope of ministry with them that was beyond their denomination. I felt that to serve the Kingdom of God, I felt that they would have done much better had they stepped out of their ecclesiastical structure to serve the larger body. Now that was purely on a charismatic basis at that point. They didn’t feel so and I was in no position to press them but what interested me and what gave me some answers was that along came the question of ordaining women. Now some who did not feel to come out on the charismatic issue - (*laughter*) – felt their conscience more exercised in that area. Then came the matter of ordaining homosexuals. I saw almost all of these men who didn’t come out on the charismatic issue, almost all came out on these two issues and so I said to the Lord; “Whatever cards have you got up Your sleeve next?!”. (*laughter*).
You see I believe brothers that we’ve got to be careful of one thing that we don’t let this thing get down into the methodological area and stay there – there has got to be a faith element that God’s got all kinds of surprises coming up.
Bryn Jones:
I think there’s a great element of truth in that – I’ve had some dealings with some brethren who are in denominations (some that are here) and the issues are a little more clear than that. I don’t believe in any of the systems there is an interim covering that can give those men a covering that true apostolic covering is meant to give. Therefore even with whatever interim covering they have, they are lacking and are aware of the lack of what we are speaking about. I believe Ern has given has given a very good and clear answer to what we are seeking. Yes we do feel very strongly for all our brethren in denominational settings. I say that particularly for the denominational men here. We do strongly feel for you the love of Christ. We want to retain and deepen fellowship with you. But working relationship and fellowship are two different things.
Fellowship we can but we cannot have a deep working relationship without at some point creating a conflict of interest to yourselves. Therefore you will find yourselves in conflict with the structure already existing and the way that you would be called to go in deeper relationships with ourselves. So fellowship – yes – we want it to be maintained and deepened. Working relationship is a different story at this point. So I heed what brother Vic is saying. Yes we do want to fellowship with all those brothers and let them know our love, our friendship and our fellowship.. But as you know yourselves those of us who are moving strongly in these dimensions – the pressures of time demand that our priority is given to the men with whom we are deeply involved in working relationship. Men who have come onto clear ground and are therefore asking for clear input and so the time becomes limited to develop strong fellowships and deep fellowship there.
I would also say that there are large numbers –I am aware that our answers are on tape so we measure our words and do not speak them in advisedly – if men in our denominations who are long overdue as far as leaving them is concerned. They are not in there on the only ground that could cause them to stay because God has given them faith in their hearts for their future within that. Many are there out of loyalty and loyalty will not be enough. Men can die by staying in loyalty. So you – if you are in a denomination – need to ask yourself this; Are you still in it in faith that God has told you to stay, that your future is in it, that there is something God has in purpose for you there and He requires you to stay there and you are in faith for that to be fulfilled? If not then I think you need to ask yourself – where is your faith put? Now I know that is a very clear ground but I feel we have to speak it out of knowledge of the needs of the country at this time. I believe there are very many good men who are there in those denominations who are there by faith, their time is not yet fulfilled and that there is a lot they are going to move onto and there are men who are going to touch situations that will change them. But if they go beyond their faith and stay beyond their faith in the denominations then they are in real trouble.
Delegate:
Fellowship we can but we cannot have a deep working relationship without at some point creating a conflict of interest to yourselves. Therefore you will find yourselves in conflict with the structure already existing and the way that you would be called to go in deeper relationships with ourselves. So fellowship – yes – we want it to be maintained and deepened. Working relationship is a different story at this point. So I heed what brother Vic is saying. Yes we do want to fellowship with all those brothers and let them know our love, our friendship and our fellowship.. But as you know yourselves those of us who are moving strongly in these dimensions – the pressures of time demand that our priority is given to the men with whom we are deeply involved in working relationship. Men who have come onto clear ground and are therefore asking for clear input and so the time becomes limited to develop strong fellowships and deep fellowship there.
I would also say that there are large numbers –I am aware that our answers are on tape so we measure our words and do not speak them in advisedly – if men in our denominations who are long overdue as far as leaving them is concerned. They are not in there on the only ground that could cause them to stay because God has given them faith in their hearts for their future within that. Many are there out of loyalty and loyalty will not be enough. Men can die by staying in loyalty. So you – if you are in a denomination – need to ask yourself this; Are you still in it in faith that God has told you to stay, that your future is in it, that there is something God has in purpose for you there and He requires you to stay there and you are in faith for that to be fulfilled? If not then I think you need to ask yourself – where is your faith put? Now I know that is a very clear ground but I feel we have to speak it out of knowledge of the needs of the country at this time. I believe there are very many good men who are there in those denominations who are there by faith, their time is not yet fulfilled and that there is a lot they are going to move onto and there are men who are going to touch situations that will change them. But if they go beyond their faith and stay beyond their faith in the denominations then they are in real trouble.
Delegate:
Isn’t that the very real tragedy of Jonathan’s relationship to David – when he knows his kingdom is coming in and yet he is still staying with Saul? I feel that there are men in this place that are really in a Jonathan situation.
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
This makes me take another good hard conscience look at my basic working assumptions. I totally agree with Arthur’s message this morning. I believe that God is doing something in the earth and I am not speaking euphorically or theoretically. I have been recently in Australia seeing some things there. Papua New Guinea and Hawaii – I believe God is bring into focus a spiritual authority and a rapidly growing dimension of spiritual authority. I am assuming that this is God’s alternative to the decaying system around us – not only ecclesiastical but economic, sociological and political.
This makes it difficult for me to handle a sort of twilight zone or an interim thing. I say that for this reason – for someone to come out of one structure of authority into an area where there may be fellowship and friendship and warmth and so on, but not come into a structure of authority that God is bringing into being – is maybe like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. He may find more frustration in that intermediate area than he found back in the area where he was frustrated by carnal authoritarianism. I doubt very much if I can speak the kind of authoritative word into the heart of a man who is disenchanted with his ecclesiastical structure and is looking for an alternative. If I myself cannot speak with enthusiasm of having found the kind of authority and relationship over – under – beside – in front of – behind that will appeal to that man for him to make the kind of move that he needs to make then I am afraid that if gets in here then there are an awful lot that will kind of fizzle out.
This makes it difficult for me to handle a sort of twilight zone or an interim thing. I say that for this reason – for someone to come out of one structure of authority into an area where there may be fellowship and friendship and warmth and so on, but not come into a structure of authority that God is bringing into being – is maybe like jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. He may find more frustration in that intermediate area than he found back in the area where he was frustrated by carnal authoritarianism. I doubt very much if I can speak the kind of authoritative word into the heart of a man who is disenchanted with his ecclesiastical structure and is looking for an alternative. If I myself cannot speak with enthusiasm of having found the kind of authority and relationship over – under – beside – in front of – behind that will appeal to that man for him to make the kind of move that he needs to make then I am afraid that if gets in here then there are an awful lot that will kind of fizzle out.
I think God’s purpose in bringing out is to bring into. I think that I can’t speak very well to him if I haven’t got something to bring him into that I am deeply convinced of. That is just an expression of my own concern.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Amen.
Delegate:
Delegate:
Are you saying then that if a man has faith to stay in a situation that he cannot find apostolic covering without coming out?
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Yes, I think that is what we are saying. Philip is that because of the nature of apostolic ministry, it implies authority to give direction and that if he is already in a denomination and has faith in his heart for some specific reason and purpose and God still had His immediate purpose and future in it, he cannot relate through an apostolic ministry in that sense without coming into conflict at some point without finding a conflict of interest at some point. Now I sense at this point for ourselves – because obviously we can only judge at this point by what is existing not by an ideal that we see in the New Testament where the apostles primarily related to churches that they had raised up and there was no conflict of interest or where they did function towards an existing church, they were already in relationship with the apostles that had fathered it. But we feel that our working relationships cannot function to those men – our fellowship wants to be with them, our friendship wants to be with them, but our working relationship cannot be with them – our actual ministry function cannot be given to them because of that conflict of interest. I think they are aware of it too – at some point they know this division of loyalty and interest will happen.
Arthur Wallis:
Arthur Wallis:
I think a lot depends on the type of denominational structure that you are in. What Bryn is saying I would wholly back up in the nature of certain, rigid, tight structures where say the immediate problem of water baptism might become a major problem. I think you wouldn’t go very far before you are immediately in conflict. But you are to participate in a Baptist church where there is a great deal of independence therefore I would allow that you could have apostolic covering that could exist for quite a while. But what it would do is bit by bit change you as a church. This change would be a process by which less and less you would resemble a Baptist church and more and more a New Testament church in the full sense of the word until it would be a question of snipping the last ties and you should become a fully fledged expression of the Body of Christ which is what the whole thing is about.
So that might last over perhaps a year or two years. But I feel that if you can move on in what God is showing you – if you can have a measure of that liberty and you won’t come to a point where after a few weeks you are going to say “I am very sorry because I am a Baptist minister I can’t do that” – then you are in a situation where you’ve got to either make a decisive step and say this is where I must make my departure or you have to say I am very sorry but I can’t accept your covering any longer. I do see and one sees them in different parts of the country where I believe the Spirit of God has been re-moulding the wineskins – renewing the wineskins and I don’t think we ought to rule out the possibility that God may do that. I think it is a very difficult path.
I think it is much easier – as Ern says – to pull down and build up a new thing but God is the God of the impossible. Think what He is doing among the Catholics! We must not limit God. So I think one has to think in one’s own heart if the situation permits that kind of progressive change until something within emerges in the old situation.
Delegate:
So that might last over perhaps a year or two years. But I feel that if you can move on in what God is showing you – if you can have a measure of that liberty and you won’t come to a point where after a few weeks you are going to say “I am very sorry because I am a Baptist minister I can’t do that” – then you are in a situation where you’ve got to either make a decisive step and say this is where I must make my departure or you have to say I am very sorry but I can’t accept your covering any longer. I do see and one sees them in different parts of the country where I believe the Spirit of God has been re-moulding the wineskins – renewing the wineskins and I don’t think we ought to rule out the possibility that God may do that. I think it is a very difficult path.
I think it is much easier – as Ern says – to pull down and build up a new thing but God is the God of the impossible. Think what He is doing among the Catholics! We must not limit God. So I think one has to think in one’s own heart if the situation permits that kind of progressive change until something within emerges in the old situation.
Delegate:
Well aren’t we in that kind of interim phase? Aren’t we all moving towards that kind of situation?
(Baxter to Jones):
(Baxter to Jones):
Can I speak into that?
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
I want to make it very clear that I was speaking to the case of the man who is coming out. I think there are two kinds of interim – there is the interim of the man who is dealing with a definite break. He can’t stay any longer – he has got to come out. Now I was talking about the issue of what is he coming out to? If he is coming out to some kind of foggy, indefinable twilight zone then it’d be almost better to stay where he is. Then the interim that you are referring to is the one that we are all in. I think a better word for it would be “transition”. I don’t feel that I am in an interim between a denominational situation and a relational situation. My relational situation is as healthy and firm as I believe it can be and could be at this point. I’m in transition – we’re on our way to something better. But I don’t feel that we are in interim. So I would like to make that differentiation.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
I think that Arthur also brought an adjustment to what I said. Because in my mind I was answering from existing relationship with some men who are in structures that I know would inevitably produce conflict. But there are of course denominations in this country that have much greater autonomy given to their churches such as the Baptist and the Brethren and the Assemblies of God and people of this nature. But there are others that are much different to that, which have certain characteristics – especially the Anglican Church because the Rector has a great deal of personal freedom and things of that nature, then the question of baptism or some of the other questions become very real issues for those men.
Delegate:
Delegate:
Yes I think it is obvious that quite a number of situations have been completely transformed. For example I used to be in a Plymouth Brethren Assembly, which sort of gradually moved by various stages into what we now have as a related church. But I think what is important – again coming back to this question of faith – is that we are beginning with the faith that, not only are we going to be a blessing in the situation but a faith for the whole thing. We can’t have faith for part of what God is doing and to leave out of our whole thinking the question of relationship and structure and authority so that the whole thing is left on the shelf. Now we might start where we are but in declaring the whole counsel of God to our situation, either the structure will change to become more biblically based or it won’t. Now at that point we have to decide whether we are obeying God or whether we are committed to the previous ecclesiastical structure. I think in our hearts if we are committed to what God is saying then we can begin to form relationships which will either transform or bring out of that situation.
Delegate:
Delegate:
One of the things we found when we came out of the Baptist Union was that we had to ask for ourselves – what were we? That was not only a question of leadership but it was also an unconscious question for all of the members of the flock that didn’t quite know what they were. They had entered this realm of independent free churches now apart from belonging to a denomination. But there was no covering there and it is very difficult to find out what you are.
What we have found in coming under apostolic covering is we have found security not only as leaders but also as a church and we have found identity and that is very important because when you have got that then you can go somewhere. I think we sense now that we have moved from a state of emergency to a state of emergence. (*laughter*).
Bryn Jones:
What we have found in coming under apostolic covering is we have found security not only as leaders but also as a church and we have found identity and that is very important because when you have got that then you can go somewhere. I think we sense now that we have moved from a state of emergency to a state of emergence. (*laughter*).
Bryn Jones:
Now there are a number of questions – quite a number so we’re going to have to move more rapidly here. So … I think we probably have to curtail the panel. If we feel it’s adequately covered then move on. Only if you think it hasn’t been adequately covered then call for more.
This one I think is important though. “It seems that the “army” and “chain of command” are used very rarely in the New Testament. Is it therefore justifiable to see apostolic ministry in terms of generals or commanders?”. I think we can sandwich two in together here – Matthew 20:20-28, John 13:12-17, Philippians 2:1-12. (*laughter*). These all have to do with serving. These passages and many others emphasise the fact that the higher one is in structure, then the greater need is to be submissive to the church. I hope it meant to serve … “Should not then the Spirit of Christ therefore be the sign of an apostle? Would you not then agree that an apostle is recognised by this basic attitude and not by some divine right to govern?”. Are they to be viewed as generals and commanders – shouldn’t it be more their servant heart? And not some divine right to govern? Well – what do we think?
Peter Parris:
This one I think is important though. “It seems that the “army” and “chain of command” are used very rarely in the New Testament. Is it therefore justifiable to see apostolic ministry in terms of generals or commanders?”. I think we can sandwich two in together here – Matthew 20:20-28, John 13:12-17, Philippians 2:1-12. (*laughter*). These all have to do with serving. These passages and many others emphasise the fact that the higher one is in structure, then the greater need is to be submissive to the church. I hope it meant to serve … “Should not then the Spirit of Christ therefore be the sign of an apostle? Would you not then agree that an apostle is recognised by this basic attitude and not by some divine right to govern?”. Are they to be viewed as generals and commanders – shouldn’t it be more their servant heart? And not some divine right to govern? Well – what do we think?
Peter Parris:
Obviously the Lord Jesus Christ is the supreme example who came as a servant and gave His life who came not to be ministered to but to minister and this is quite clearly what the apostle takes up – ourselves as servants. But surely none of us deny that Jesus was Lord.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
And is.
Peter Parris:
Peter Parris:
Yes I know. But … (*laughter*). Thank you brother. He was undoubtedly the servant but He was also undoubtedly the Lord. The apostles – we must remember – Paul referred to himself as the “off-scouring”. He was the one that took all the bags and was finally rejected. Yes he was a servant as was his Master and he came in with a whole idea to serve but it was with an authority that service was channelled through and he served the churches by taking his spiritual authority and governing but he did it with a servants heart and so he besought with tears and he would ask them to consider what he was thinking … “I suppose” (1 Corinthians 7) or this “this is what I think not the Lord”. But there were other times when he was much more definite – “this is not I speaking but the Lord and I command”. So yes I believe that there are times when we need to have the attitude of a servant but it must also have with it the authority that Christ has given to that servant so that the two things to me aren’t opposites – they are necessary.
Delegate:
Delegate:
Are there two different types of authority – the authority of God and the authority that God gives so that we don’t have to be frightened of the general command that God gives?
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
I think it’s important to say of course that we believe that serving is the sign – the servant heart and spirit is one of the hallmarks of apostleship. In fact the only place I find Jesus referring to Himself as Lord and Master (others call Him that but the only place He referred to Himself) was when He had the towel and basin washing their feet. So He claimed the title there in serving. The reason we’ve majored in on this – I have never found people who have a problem in accepting an apostle serving them. I find the problem lies when the apostolic government comes. That’s why we have majored on government because I have heard of no conflict in the issues – that anywhere in the country – over serving. But up and down the country there is large resistance to apostolic authority. What we need to see (as Peter Parris says) is that they are both valid but the apostle is not an apostle if he isn’t serving and not using authority. The same is true of the shepherd in the local church. As many of you know the people would love all the pastors to serve. Full stop.
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
I just want to say that I believe that you cannot separate these two issues of apostolic ministry and I think this is where the anti-authoritarianism comes in the name of not being a servant. Jesus constantly differentiated between the way that the Gentiles do it and the way He wanted His people to do it. So I think we’re talking here about a difference in attitude and motivation. He wasn’t questioning the matter of the need for government but He was pressing the need for a proper motivational source.
Any man whether he be apostle, prophet, evangelist or shepherd who is not motivated by agape love is violating his office and his authority
I believe that the motivation … that our Lord was constantly at motivation. “Blessed are the poor in spirit”. Now we would be less than honest if we didn’t say that in the whole emergence of this authority matter there have not been men who have seen it as an opportunity to exercise Gentilic authoritarianism. They’ve had to be dealt with – because where is that sort of thing, it is as much a danger to the proper function of proper authority as anti-authoritarianism. So that I believe that we are looking at a matter of “Knowledge puffeth up but love buildeth up”. If a man has a methodological knowledge – he understands the methodology and the structure but he doesn’t have a love motivation then he is going to blow it. So we are talking about motivation – that a genuine ministry motivated by love will exercise the firmest kind of authority but he will do it like Paul did. Paul said, “I warned every man night and day – not with a loud voice but with tears”. Those were love tears.
Mike Stevens:
Mike Stevens:
This matter of talking commanders and generals and so forth – the world certainly in the armed forces recognises what is a good officer and this is an officer who serves his men and looks after them and not just one who wields his authority with a big stick.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
And that is authority – because the brother who just spoke is a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy. (*laughter*).
Delegate:
Delegate:
Just the way one sees it – The nature of authority. It would seem to me that we are speaking of two different kinds of authority. The Gentile type of authority that asserts itself from above and the other, which is spiritual authority that asserts itself by submitting from beneath. It is a submission to authority rather than an imposition.
Delegate:
Delegate:
A comment was made about the “Chain of Command”. That is rather a narrow expression and I think maybe it is – that we may get locked in if we just think of this whole business as just being a chain of command but rather it is an operation. A chain of function that has a breath to it. It includes authority but it has all these other things that we have heard about this morning. As it happens the example is the analogy of the army. The New Testament teaches about the Body – that my head doesn’t command my shoulder, which commands my arm, which commands my hand – they are in a relationship of function. So I think it would serve us to keep that broader perspective. One other point that I think Arthur Wallis can justify himself on using the analogy of the army – I think it is a shame that we get locked into a narrow-minded approach of the Scriptures – a textualism approach whereby if a word doesn’t appear more than 10 times in Young’s Concordance then it is not very valid. What Arthur was giving was a whole under girding in other aspects of creation too so I think it would be good if we don’t get ourselves locked into words but keep our minds on concepts that God has written in.
Bryn Jones:
I think that’s very important – I think most of the men that in heart do not want to receive apostolic ministry towards them would love to fasten onto some particular phrase to justify their withdrawal or refusal to move into these things. This makes it very awkward to deal with any of these things. Whether we talk of the chain of command, of function – we think ‘Well it’s better used as function’. But that’s not very specific and chain of command is there. Serving is there. Love is there. Also the rod is there. The rod is there in love and the chain of command is there in serving. So what we’re saying is that where hearts want to respond they’re not trying to nail men on the terms and phrases they’re using. But where the heart doesn’t want to respond, they will never find a phrase that they will escape some problem with.
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
I think that if we are faithful to all the metaphors we can avoid this kind of problem. Army is a valid metaphor – Body is a valid metaphor – Building is a valid metaphor – family is a valid metaphor – a well-ordered farm is a valid metaphor – a vine is a valid metaphor. When we take all the metaphors I think we get what I call “Simile Sickness”. (*laughter*). And I can recall years ago when there was a great move in evangelicalism that the church was the “Bride” – the church is a mature Man and the church is a Building. So if you take all of the metaphors I think you won’t get locked into any particular concept. While the army may have an element of authoritarianism, if you put it alongside the Family and the Body and the Vine – it’s softened but not changed.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Amen. We will stay with “chain of command” for a moment. “Does the chain of command imply that there is ultimately one man who is the final authority except of course for the Lord? This seemed to be what was said and from Matthew 10:2”. Of course obviously at the back of the statement is the thought of the Pope. Well shall we go to the man who “said”? (*laughter*).
Arthur Wallis:
I think someone was reading into my words more than what I intended. No – there is no question of an sort of Pope – if we should use in some circles a sort of forbidden word, “Pyramid” – you must recognise that the tip of the pyramid is in heaven. But there is an apostolic level and I believe that there is a graduation of the apostolic order. I think we find chiefest apostles and there were those apostles who were not chief ones or emergent ones like Timothy. But one only has to stop and think of the kind of authority we’re talking about and the implication of it. In a whole globe that has been touched and a kingdom of God brought in, how could there be one global authority? Even with modern technology it is utterly impractical! So that we’re not saying that – we don’t believe and that wouldn’t be possible anyway. So that when we talk of apostleship we believe that in the main touching peer level where apostles relate to apostles – but there’s no question of this being under that one.
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
Forgive me if I am saying too much Bryn – but it keeps coming. (*laughter*). I want to speak into this for a moment quite emotionally and subjectively. I’ve just come from Rome where I was with my Roman Catholic brethren and because of the frailty of the Pope, he couldn’t receive us personally but he placed us on the front row of his general audience, which numbered 10, 000 and he addressed us from his place on the platform very warmly. But what I wanted to say was this, when the Pope came into that great auditorium, the emotion and response! There must have been 3 thousand flash bulbs going off simultaneously! The whistling, the shouting among the charismatics – you could tell that there was just a tremendous something going on! Some of us were talking about it after and I could not avoid the sense that in the Pope these people saw an authority that somehow held the whole structure together. I know more about the Pope now that I ever did before. I am not an apologist for Rome – I want to assure you that! But neither am I a Catholic baiter. We are in some very deep serious dialogue with the Catholic brethren and I believe the times are upon us brothers where we have to be very sensitive to a lot of these things. But when I discovered that the Pope never really functions unilaterally – that he functions out of the curacy – that he is really is the ultimate voice of the authority structure – it made me stop and think. While he is that voice and while he is that figure, he never functions out of that. I point blank asked about many of these things – even to the changing of architecture in the Vatican.
If a Pope wanted to do something in St Peters – now I trust my informant was valid, I believe he was, he was very knowledgeable – but even if the Pope wanted to make some of the structural changes, he couldn’t do that unilaterally and on his own. So that even in the matter of the Pope – if it’s the Pope you are worried about – the danger is that the Pope could and has historically attempted to take unilateral authority. Even when he’s attempted it he has been pulled down. All wise modern Popes are aware that they are operating out of counsel.
So that even when you think of God as a unit – I think you have to rethink that God in Himself is a sweet society and functions of a Trinity of counsel. He does all things out of the counsel of His own will. Well He’s certainly not talking to Himself. (*laughter*). So that even though it’s paradoxical God is counselling with God. “The Lord said unto my Lord”. In the plurality of the Trinity even you still have counsel! I don’t think there should be any fear of unilaterality. I am not worried about the pyramid because I think the pyramid is actually a very valid illustration. When you come to the top of the pyramid you still have plurality and when you get into heaven you still have plurality! So I don’t see any danger whatsoever in someone becoming a dictator because as I have functioned in dialogue in this relational thing with peer group men – eyeball to eyeball – gut to gut (*laughter*) – I have seen that no one is going to Lord it over anybody!
Yes I was sharing this morning that I think rather than be afraid of Roman Catholicism that I think it would be a good idea to take a good hard look at why it is what it is and where it has come from. It is true that it did attempt to Christianise paganism but I believe you have there a Post-Constantine attempt to maintain liturgically and constructionally what in Pre-Constantine times was spiritual. The Gregorian Chant – the chant of things.
If a Pope wanted to do something in St Peters – now I trust my informant was valid, I believe he was, he was very knowledgeable – but even if the Pope wanted to make some of the structural changes, he couldn’t do that unilaterally and on his own. So that even in the matter of the Pope – if it’s the Pope you are worried about – the danger is that the Pope could and has historically attempted to take unilateral authority. Even when he’s attempted it he has been pulled down. All wise modern Popes are aware that they are operating out of counsel.
So that even when you think of God as a unit – I think you have to rethink that God in Himself is a sweet society and functions of a Trinity of counsel. He does all things out of the counsel of His own will. Well He’s certainly not talking to Himself. (*laughter*). So that even though it’s paradoxical God is counselling with God. “The Lord said unto my Lord”. In the plurality of the Trinity even you still have counsel! I don’t think there should be any fear of unilaterality. I am not worried about the pyramid because I think the pyramid is actually a very valid illustration. When you come to the top of the pyramid you still have plurality and when you get into heaven you still have plurality! So I don’t see any danger whatsoever in someone becoming a dictator because as I have functioned in dialogue in this relational thing with peer group men – eyeball to eyeball – gut to gut (*laughter*) – I have seen that no one is going to Lord it over anybody!
Yes I was sharing this morning that I think rather than be afraid of Roman Catholicism that I think it would be a good idea to take a good hard look at why it is what it is and where it has come from. It is true that it did attempt to Christianise paganism but I believe you have there a Post-Constantine attempt to maintain liturgically and constructionally what in Pre-Constantine times was spiritual. The Gregorian Chant – the chant of things.
We are doing the same thing only it has broken out again into the realm of the Spirit.
The structure of authority in the Roman Catholic Church – when it’s broken down and the entire sub heads are broken off it is in a very real sense an apostolic structure right down to the parish priest. In fact the parish itself is a geographical area over which one of the hierarchical leaders has oversight.
Now the thing that is wrong with it is that it is assumed that everyone in the parish belongs and that everybody (if they are baptised as infants) relate and so on. But I think that rather than turning the Roman Catholic thing off we need to look at it as an attempt to carry on in the natural and in the psychological. For instance one of the antagonists of Roman Catholicism says that there isn’t a group in the world more capable of putting on a religious celebration than the Roman Catholic Church. Now before you turn against that there was nobody capable of putting on a religious celebration than Israel and their tutor was God! IT was God who brought them up three times a year with their banners flowing – all structured – all meeting around the Tabernacle. So I think before we turn Roman Catholicism off we need to look at where it has come from – it has crystallised and creedalised and formalised and put into liturgical form a whole lot of things which were the spiritual flow in the early church and come through Constantine’s unfortunate sin they were carnalised.
But you see Paul never said there was anything wrong with the form! He said they have a “form” of godliness. But they denied the power thereof! If the power doesn’t have a form then it is dissipated. If the form doesn’t have a power, it’s dead. Now he said – they have a form without the power. I think that we have got to be careful that we are not so anti-form that we dissipate the wine. The thing Jesus wasn’t concerned about was the breaking of the wine skin. The wine skins were a dime a dozen! It was the waste of the wine He was thinking of! He couldn’t get another crop of wine until next year! He didn’t want the wine wasted.
So I believe that as we look at the Roman Catholic Church we should do so studiously not with a view to copying it but to understanding it. Because today (if I may put this in discretely and carefully) the Roman Catholic Church charismatically represents the most formidable body of charismatics in the world and certainly presents because of its size the most unique laboratory of spiritual authority as opposed to structural authority to resolving it’s problems.
Bryn Jones:
Now the thing that is wrong with it is that it is assumed that everyone in the parish belongs and that everybody (if they are baptised as infants) relate and so on. But I think that rather than turning the Roman Catholic thing off we need to look at it as an attempt to carry on in the natural and in the psychological. For instance one of the antagonists of Roman Catholicism says that there isn’t a group in the world more capable of putting on a religious celebration than the Roman Catholic Church. Now before you turn against that there was nobody capable of putting on a religious celebration than Israel and their tutor was God! IT was God who brought them up three times a year with their banners flowing – all structured – all meeting around the Tabernacle. So I think before we turn Roman Catholicism off we need to look at where it has come from – it has crystallised and creedalised and formalised and put into liturgical form a whole lot of things which were the spiritual flow in the early church and come through Constantine’s unfortunate sin they were carnalised.
But you see Paul never said there was anything wrong with the form! He said they have a “form” of godliness. But they denied the power thereof! If the power doesn’t have a form then it is dissipated. If the form doesn’t have a power, it’s dead. Now he said – they have a form without the power. I think that we have got to be careful that we are not so anti-form that we dissipate the wine. The thing Jesus wasn’t concerned about was the breaking of the wine skin. The wine skins were a dime a dozen! It was the waste of the wine He was thinking of! He couldn’t get another crop of wine until next year! He didn’t want the wine wasted.
So I believe that as we look at the Roman Catholic Church we should do so studiously not with a view to copying it but to understanding it. Because today (if I may put this in discretely and carefully) the Roman Catholic Church charismatically represents the most formidable body of charismatics in the world and certainly presents because of its size the most unique laboratory of spiritual authority as opposed to structural authority to resolving it’s problems.
Bryn Jones:
And because this is being taped I think I really would like to put some addition to what Ern is saying. The fact that he is saying he has no problem with form I trust and I know (because of my relationship with him) he would have just as many problems with some of the practices that go on in Roman Catholicism. Secondly we are not saying that I believe the present Pope or all hopes down are apostles of Jesus Christ. I don’t know. Certainly history shows that some of them could never have been that. Then the third thing we are not saying is that because the Pope is receiving the large acclaim of the many who were there when he came in, neither are we saying that necessarily means that he should be receiving the universal claim of the church of Jesus Christ of which we are a part. It is to those people that are related to him there. So I am putting that on record just in case some say, “Didn’t I tell you?! We’re on the march to Rome!”. (*laughter*).
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
The interesting thing about this is that while we’re being charged with being on our way to Rome, our Roman Catholic friends are being charged with being on their way to Protestantism. (*laughter*).
Delegate:
Delegate:
Bryn could I just ask Ern one more thing. He said he didn’t have a problem with the pyramid. Now Arthur’s point that the tip of the pyramid was in heaven is an important one. I think you said that there are a few apostles at the top so the idea that they are somewhere just before the tip. Just under the cloud there are about three. Could you amplify that? Because I think that’s a fair point.
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
Well I wouldn’t confine it to three. (*laughter*). I think that if we take 1 Corinthians 12:28 then we definitely have an order. Now the number of apostles I think will be determined out of the economic trinity. Within the Trinity are the functions of the Persons. Ideally we see God in three Persons sitting in celestial majesty. Economically we see the Father sending the Son into the Incarnation – sending the Spirit back who has lived for two thousand years in this muck and mess! So that economically I am saying that at the top of the government of God there has got to be a body of men – I wouldn’t confine it to three – but there has got to be a body of men. For instance the apostles did a very audacious thing. They divided the world in half and gave half to Peter and half to Paul. At least generically they said Peter – you take care of the Jews and Paul you take care of the Gentiles. I think that tells u something of the authority we are talking about.
Delegate:
Delegate:
So it’s actually two? (*laughter*).
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
They’re saying are you saying it is now two instead of three?
Ern Baxter:
Ern Baxter:
Yes I would say that in the beginning it was two. (*laughter*).
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Okay. Yes there is another question back here.
Delegate:
Delegate:
On this theme of plurality Arthur was ministering this morning on the plurality of elders but when there get to the top there must be …
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Ah yes – Arthur was saying that there is plurality but in that plurality there is not equality of function and authority.
Arthur Wallis:
Arthur Wallis:
Yes I don’t think I can say a lot more because I don’t think I know much more except we must distinguish between a difference in equality and the fact of submission and authority. I think because two men are not at the same level of authority does not mean that one submits to the other or in the sense that sheep will submit to a shepherd. I mean that’s a very clear relationship where there is a command coming through. I would see much more in the realm of apostleship. I mean – I do see equality – I see different levels of authority and maturity so that I think it’s out of the relationship of authority and love that there is a mutual submission to one another.
Here is a man who in his realm of apostleship has really got something from God and the other men will bow to him in that realm of his competence and ability. Another realm say that they might turn to another man. I see it working that way really – I don’t see a Scriptural authority for saying that apostles are all submitted and I think that one would really have to find some Scriptures to establish that although I know that some do teach that.
Ern Baxter:
Here is a man who in his realm of apostleship has really got something from God and the other men will bow to him in that realm of his competence and ability. Another realm say that they might turn to another man. I see it working that way really – I don’t see a Scriptural authority for saying that apostles are all submitted and I think that one would really have to find some Scriptures to establish that although I know that some do teach that.
Ern Baxter:
The term we use is leadership among equals. Again I think that if this thing deteriorates into methodology we’ve got problems. We have got to be constantly flowing in the Spirit to find out charismatically whom God puts a leadership among equals on. When the Spirit says “Separate unto Me Barnabus and Saul” then that was a sovereign act of the Lord Jesus. I believe that in a body of shepherds you will have a James figure and so on. But this will be charismatically designated and I think if you look at this subjectively – you put a group of men together who are equal in function – they’re all elders but it will become obvious charismatically where each one is and that you will see the emergent leadership of that group.
It’s not a matter of equality. I think it’s like the man/woman thing – heirs together of eternal life! Redemptively equal but functionally different. I think where you have these bodies of leaders in their particular spheres there is an equality in terms of office but there is a difference in terms of charism and there is leadership in equality. This I think comes out in Trinity – in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That you have the Father as a sort of Chairman of the Board – it’s just there. We even use it theologically – first Person, second Person, Third Person and so on. Obviously there is a procession in the economic Trinity and that indicates that within the equality of Trinity there is functional leadership and the Father is the source. So I think in all of these areas there is indeed leadership among equals.
Bryn Jones:
It’s not a matter of equality. I think it’s like the man/woman thing – heirs together of eternal life! Redemptively equal but functionally different. I think where you have these bodies of leaders in their particular spheres there is an equality in terms of office but there is a difference in terms of charism and there is leadership in equality. This I think comes out in Trinity – in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That you have the Father as a sort of Chairman of the Board – it’s just there. We even use it theologically – first Person, second Person, Third Person and so on. Obviously there is a procession in the economic Trinity and that indicates that within the equality of Trinity there is functional leadership and the Father is the source. So I think in all of these areas there is indeed leadership among equals.
Bryn Jones:
I think we have to move on – we’ve got about ten minutes. So there is one here. “Does the fact that a person outwardly says ‘Yes’ to the authority over him necessarily mean that he is being submissive?”. Well I think our answer is “No”. (*laughter*). If I am saying “No” to apostolic covering then I can’t mean yes in my heart. The next one – “Some say there are similarities between what we are in today and the early exclusive Brethren – what prevents or preserves us from the same abuses that they fell into?”. Well there are several on that question actually and I think at some point Arthur would have to give the third part of the message is kind of a preserving nature. Another – “Is any other Scriptural relationship except that of brothers?”. Should the word “relationship” be used of joining other Christians of similar vision?. I am not sure of the meaning of that question really. Does anyone want to …?
Arthur Wallis:
Arthur Wallis:
Again obviously within the Body of Christ in the church we are all brethren. As the Lord Jesus reminded us, “Call no man Father”. We are all brethren! But when it comes to the working Kingdom – in other words when we are in working relationships you will find it comes through very clearly in Paul’s writings. He speaks of “fellow soldiers” and “fellow labourers” and “fellow workmen” and “yoke fellow men in the Gospel” – which was not true of all his brethren – believers in Christ. He had this specific relationship with men, brothers in Christ who were joined to him and had the same vision and were in a working relationship and were together – planting the Kingdom. To me it is utterly impossible to be involved in that sort of operation except the one to whom you are joined clearly accepts your vision and is involved on the same basic principle. Now I would feel if someone rejects this concept of authority and submission that we’ve been talking about – it would be utterly impossible to labour with him. I could have fellowship. I could even perhaps move into a situation and share and minister with him but I could not labour with him and build with him – it would be utterly impossible.
Bryn Jones:
The final question – “In a situation where a church is emerging what should be the attitude of the leaders towards those who are resisting what God is showing? For example people clearly ‘in fellowship’ before we felt led into being a committed fellowship with others and covering with others?”. Was that question clear? I think that’s a very real question for a lot of men here. Some churches in the country have been existing for a considerable period of time in their minds a church. And yet they’ve been totally independent in relationship with other bodies of believers they have not really been committed to each other properly. Many of them have met on a congregational basis rather than a community of saint’s basis. The question is what happens now that the leaders feel to get involved in the strains of the fellowship?
Dave Mansell:
Dave Mansell:
Obviously the situation of their non-receiving of the word that is coming now implies that they were never really submitted to the leadership before that happened. I think one of the ways that could be released is for the leadership to admit their own fault in the matter that the thing wasn’t built right in the first place. To be sharing clearly with the people how God had brought them to see what He was doing and spelling out the thing clearly so they understand this thing on a Scriptural basis. To me it is exactly the same thing as parents whose children have been ill disciplined. Suddenly they wake up to their responsibilities and they should come back even to their own children and admit their fault and say that this is God’s principle – this is now how it’s going to work and that is it. The foundation of life in Christ! This isn’t some optional extra – this is a foundational extra of receiving from the Lord. I think that could help the situation rather than just imposing it from the platform which could have disastrous effects.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Fine.
Delegate:
There seems a great number of us who have come through in the experience and seen some value in that. It might be helpful if there is some opportunity to share the testimony of that to show that it does work.
Bryn Jones:
Bryn Jones:
Well I think that would be better done on a person-to-person basis because this room is filled with testimonies of it working. I would think that the people having problems would be a small minority here. You will probably find the answers you seek at lunch! The reason we wanted these things made absolutely clear was because several of us – and Terry Virgo out there – along with others of this nature are having to work with you as churches and we are finding increasing call on us from new situations. New places. It becomes clearly and clearly that we must narrow down our priority of input on time. It must be put in where there are clearly understood grounds of relationship and acceptance of authority that releases us to work in a working relationship with these people. That would mean for some of you here this presents almost a new sense of urgency as to where you personally are as a fellowship and as a group of elders in terms of your relationship to ministries that are present here.
Okay? God bless you all.
~ End of Transcript ~
Okay? God bless you all.
~ End of Transcript ~
No comments:
Post a Comment