I can’t imagine the Jesus being interested in leadership. I can imagine him being a servant.

I can’t imagine Jesus being interested in the Bible. I can imagine him being interested in people.

John Yates’ critique is too soft. I can imagine Jesus seeing the poverty and injustice in our world and going into our churches to reenact the cleansing of the temple.

We need to stop trying to make a kingdom of this world in Christ’s name. We must first seek the Kingdom of God. May His kingdom be with you all.

Not much there about actually getting messy with each other and rubbing shoulders, which was my point.

Why would mega-super-over-comers want to support (and not ‘merge’ with) a grass-roots Forge-ey styled approach?”

Because ‘faithful’ Mega churches and pastors will be able to see God’s hand working in both styles.

The last church I was a part of, though not a ‘mega church’ by world standards is definately one of the ‘bigger’ Perth churches, is definately supportive of ‘other styles’ of church and are willing to both support in prayer, and monetarily, people who obviously have the call of God to try something new. They have supported people in the past, doing new things, with no ‘obvious’ benefit for themselves, and with no desire to take over or control. And it’s great!

Big churches should not be scared of new, post-Christian expressions and new expressions should not be scared of big churches. I believe we should accept and embrace both. Certainly, if I ever lead or am just part of a grass-rootsy style church I hope I can make significant partnerships with other churches, great and small. Likewise, if I find myself in a more mainstream church, I hope and pray I can support, encourage and partner with ‘newer’ expressions of church.

Who then was the historical J*esus?

I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir? yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. Some Jews who didn’t practice Judaism where threatened. They decided to crucify him. So they did – together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.

Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah; Christianity is anti-Torah.

If you want to learn more click at our website http://www.netzarim.co.il — than click at the lick “Christians”

Hasheim – the Creator of the universe – loves you. If you want to have a relation with Him you need to follow His Torah non-selectively.

Be blessed when you practice Hasheims Torah and His mitzwot!

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism

Also I agree with James that it’s dangerous to paint with too broad a brush. My only point in posting is that there are some (I’ve known some personally) for whom the focus on ministry and leadership is excessive and completely lacks Christ. It’s the Christian version of the human desire to be successful.

As far as “those who love God will show it by what they do”…

I would say, “Yes, but…”

The point is to love God.

We turn it on its head and make the point “showing that we love God.”

There is a difference.

In my experience, there is often (again, not all the time, not in all churches, and not by all people) a great “show” of loving God, but very little real understanding of loving him and being loved by him.

Sometimes we’re so busy trying to prove that we love God by what we “do”, that we won’t let ourselves actually “be” loved by him, spend time in relationship with him, etc. I think a lot of times our “doing” is driven by fear, not by love.

But again, this is some people, some of the time. Not all people, all of the time. I never want to paint with too broad a brush.

Its why I visit this blog, and support in prayer what Hamo is trying to do… not a mega church pastor though… ha!

Why would grass root groups want to hang with mega-groups?

Why would mega-super-over-comers want to support (and not ‘merge’ with) a grass-roots Forge-ey styled approach?

I have to agree with this statement by Mark.

When I first read this article above I both wholeheartedly agreed and disagreed with it…which is difficult to explain.

John definately raises some valid issues…but statements like the one Mark highlighted, “It is extremely introverted. This is indicated, for example, by the inordinate focus on leadership, ministry, church growth, gifts, the Bible, anointing, prosperity, revival etc. rather than on the person of Jesus and his living presence amongst us.” are, IMO, problematic. That makes it sound like people who are involved in those things AREN’T focused on Jesus the person…and on relationship with him.

Whilst I would nor could never argue those things have not been ‘abused’ in the past, and some people HAVE lost focus on Jesus, to tar everybody with the same brush there is plain wrong.

Reflecting on the above article, it makes it ’sound’ like the majority of what we call ‘church’ today is wrong, is not focused on Jesus and is not bringing about the Kingdom. In saying this, I am generalising, and I realise that is what I have called John on, but I just want to point out that there are MANY churches today, using the principles that John highlighted, making significant inroads for the Kingdom.

Now I know I don’t hold anywhere NEAR as much credence as John, who has years of experience, study and practise to draw from, but in this day where there are more and more prophetic voices rising up and calling into question the modus operandi of church, I just wonder whether we are in danger of falling into ‘idealism’ without reality.

What do I mean by this? I mean that I absolutely love groups like Forge who are standing up and saying ‘hey, lets try something different’. I love the prophetic voice people like John are bringing…but I think we are in danger of calling for something that isn’t practical. Mainline churches just cannot nor will not change over night, so to call into question everything they do because it isn’t necessarily ‘ideal’ isn’t a practical response to the problem IMO.

What we should be doing is encouraging diversity. I dream of the day when Mega churches work alongside more grass-rootsy style churches. I see some church pastors embracing this.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that I agreed with this article in that, in an ideal world and if we have a clean slate, MAYBE we would do things differently. But I disagree with it in that I think that what we currently have CAN and WILL work. I’m not so much worried about the method as every church, no matter HOW they express themself, pray more, serve more and love more. I agree that we need ‘post-christian’ style churches to pop up, as they are, but I don’t think that has to be at the ‘expense’ of the way established churches operate. I wholeheartedly think it is a both/and, not an either or.

A spirit of ‘unity’, focused on the person of Jesus, open to diversity, in love, through prayerful faithfullness…that’s what I think we need.