Come Out Of Her My People

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So what's the big deal if someone calls it a house of God, house of worship, church building, temple, tabernacle, meeting house, house of meeting, or assembly? The Bible calls the building a synagogue which is Greek for assembly?

We should call Bible things by Bible names.

Jesus warned us about traditions of men, and how they are often used to make void the Word of God. By calling the meeting-house 'the house of God' we do several things:

1. We instill and reinforce the unbiblical notion that God dwells in temples made with hands. The first martyr of our Lord died because he strictly affirmed that God does NOT dwell in houses made with hands. By constantly speaking of the meeting-house as 'God's house' we inadvertently cheapen his testimony and its importance and significance.

2. Related to number 1 above, the new covenant is RADICAL. It is a RADICAL departure from old covenant religion. It is a RADICAL departure and indeed a RADICAL repudiation of many of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' (and the Gentiles' as well) ideas of God, religion, piety, and practically everything else. One of those RADICAL ideological (theological) elements of new covenant religion is the idea that God has REJECTED physical temples ('houses') as being insufficient and temporary relics of a by-gone and now-rendered-moot paradigm and form of religion. God dwells in a PEOPLE by His Spirit, not in a building. One worships God 24/7, on a daily basis in daily life, not merely at set times in set places (see Jesus' statements to the woman of Samaria, for example).

Words mean something. 'What difference does it make?' is the ideology of people like Hillary Clinton, not disciples of Jesus. By speaking of a meeting place as 'God's house', indeed by speaking of a meeting-house as a 'church', we deny by our words one of the fundamental bases of new covenant reality. We ought to abstain from such things.

3. We are commanded to 'hold fast the form of sound WORDS, which we have learned' from the apostles. The apostles never referred to a meeting place as 'God's house', and their theology does not allow for such a concept. By departing from the apostolic 'sound words', and calling bible things by unbiblical names, we may still be speaking theology, but it's not the apostles' theology.

4. We are forbidden to cause children to stumble. Children, when told that the building is God's 'house', do not immediately self-correct by thinking 'well, that's just a common, cultural term and really it isn't, because the house of God, or temple of God, or CHURCH is the people themselves'. Instead, they simply take what is said at face value, and are led into the darkness of ignorance of just what it really means when Paul says 'know ye not that YE are the temple of God?'.

5. Calling the meeting-house 'God's house' or 'the church' is indicative of a mind-set and an ecclesiology that is sub-biblical and quite frankly ignorant. I have had a pastor tell me that you can't have a move of God in a living room like you can in a church building. And he was serious. Carnal people crave and require the proper 'set and setting' to have a glorious religious 'experience'. Temples and cathedrals and such-like are designed for just that. And thus is demonstrated that many people's 'Pentecostalism' is just exactly that - another '-ism'. We have replaced Pentecost with this PentecostalISM. We must have our special building, our special music, our special musicians, our special speakers, our special occasions to meet our special God and have our special ecstatic experiences. When what we really need is to come and meet Abba.

6. An analogy: Is it proper and okay for us to call the Lord's supper 'the Eucharist'? Why not? What difference does it make? Should we speak of the Lord's Supper as 'the Sacrifice of the Mass'? Again, what difference does it make? Obviously, we should not be doing those things, because of all the theological baggage that comes with them. Same with calling the meeting-house a 'church' or 'God's house' - it carries with it a lot of theological baggage.

Is ignorance of said baggage an excuse to continue toting that luggage?

These are just a few reason why some of us prefer to seek to be as Biblical as possible. Others are content with not rocking the boat or making a fuss. YMMV.

Peace.