Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
Not sure of the source by which most derive the terms cast a vision, but the scripture says that without a vision the people perish. I think by casting a vision it is not meant as visions of prophecy. Instead it is more about goal setting in local church venues. I don't think that it is a bad thing, but a church must make sure their goals align with God's for their local church. What are your feelings, Votive?
|
Personally, I think casting vision is part of the problem that is endemic of the overall state of the Church in the USA, perhaps even the West, and maybe globally.
What I mean is this:
In
Ephesians 4, Paul gives us a creed by which we all ought to live. In it, we see a seven-fold proclamation of oneness. Seven being a highly important, symbolic number in the Scriptures, indicating holy covenant and completion, we need to then realize the imposition placed upon us by the apostle so as to make certain we embrace and practice the very oneness detailed by him, as follows:
There is...
1.)
ONE Body
2.)
ONE Spirit
3.)
ONE Hope
4.)
ONE Lord
5.)
ONE Faith
6.)
ONE Baptism
7.)
ONE God and Father
As a universal Christian creed, we need to see that, in this oneness, there cannot be multiple "visions" cast by multitudes of different men of God.
There really ought ever to only be one vision for the church, spearheaded by the Head of the Church. More than that is "di-vision", understanding that "di-" is a preposition meaning "two".
I don't think it's Biblical to say that in one local expression of the Body of Christ, the Head of the Church wants them to focus on X, Y, Z, while in another local expression of the Body, the Head of the Church wants them to focus on 1, 2, 3.
To have that means the
ONE Body, at the local level, is moving in two directions.
One pastor or a group of elders, wants to buy land and build a bigger "church", as the saying goes. Another pastor, or group of elders, wants to sell their building and become a home "church", as the saying goes.
Another pastor or group of elders, believes they need to invest all they have into an evangelism programs. Another pastor or group of elders believes they need to close ranks and focus on inward discipleship.
And on the list goes.
Mind you, none of the above are necessarily wrong, but in their own way, they fracture the Body and create a territorial dominion whereby many small-minded men try to build their kingdom while calling it's God's Kingdom.
See, what happens is, when a pastor, or a group of elders try and get a "vision" of what to do next, they really aren't relying on the Holy Spirit of God as much as might be assumed. Instead of trusting and waiting to actually have a vision given to them by the Holy Spirit, a lot of well-intentioned saints already have an idea in their mind of what it is they want to do, and if they are in a position to assert their weight, they steer the church in that direction.
This is what I see:
I see the vision of the Church as already given to her by Christ the Lord. Swerving from that vision in any way is not the will of God. The Church really is supposed to be an unrelenting megalith that steam-rolls all opposition. The gates of hell will not prevail against a universal Body all moving in the same direction.
However, what we have is a bunch of independent, and independently driven local churches driving around in whatever direction suits their fancy. And all it's created is a traffic jam.
Even in the most robust and well-led organizations. In my state, the UPCI looms the largest of all the Apostolic, Oneness Pentecostal organizations. The district board, every year announces a theme for the state, as an effort to cast vision for all of the saints and congregations in the state.
And yet, after the hype dies down, each and every local church does their own thing, anyways. Sure, brethren work together on various teams and programs, especially those designed to raise money (hmmm, I wonder why that is???), but otherwise, it's every man to his tent, O Israel!
I don't pretend to have the solution in my back pocket, or anything. But Paul was worried that the Corinthians would be removed from a sincere devotion to Christ as the bridgegroom of the believers. As we know, the church in Corinth was a divided, political, carnal bunch with a seemingly unending supply of problems.
Almost all, if not all of what we see in 1 and 2 Corinthians, regarding the health and state of that church, is present here in the USA.
The Apostolic Church, overall, in the USA
- Doesn't all say the same thing
- Is therefore carnal, not even ready for milk, much less meat
- Is therefore divided over the big names in Pentecost
- Has therefore attempted to build a different foundation other than Christ
- Is therefore puffed up in speech, yet lacking in power
- In consequence, fornication is commonly reported
- And, Saints defraud one another
- Need I say more...???
As long as men keep "casting vision", the saints will continue saying "I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ" in an attempt to follow that man's "vision". The only difference is or will be is that names will be substituted. Instead of Apollos, we'll have Bernard. Instead of Paul, we'll have, I don't know, take your pick. Right on down the list.
I would rather see the Lord personally reveal Himself according to His own will and timetable, then to see a church chase after Him, trying to catch a glimpse of what He's up to.
And there's the rub:
Much vision casting is nothing more than divination. Divination is an attempt to peer into the divine realm in order to figure out what the deity in question desires.
Jesus clearly opposed this idea in John. He called the disciples His friends, thereby indicating that He would always be telling them what He was up to, and what it is that He wanted from them (
John 15:15).
The testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy.
Unless a man or group of men have actually had a vision while in the Spirit, and unless the Lord clearly dictates to that man or group of men His will, any and all "visions", such as they are called, in my view, are bogus. We ought to simply call them for what they are: agendas.
Hybrid Mode
