New Look At Your Identity

Witchcraft Secret Spells Manual

Authentic Magic Spells Revealed

Get Instant Access

Our studies have shown that most Americans are struggling to clarify their identity. They tend to see themselves as unique individuals, Americans, members of their family, occupational professionals, consumers, and then as followers of Christ—in that order of priority. In the minds and hearts of most Americans—even those whose beliefs classify them as "born-again Christians"—their identity as a follower of Christ pales in importance in comparison to the other roles they embrace. Oddly, most of the born-again Christians consider themselves to be servants of God and to have been transformed by their faith in Christ. Clearly, there are some missing connections in this

Perhaps the confusion is due to the enormous number of interactions and responsibilities that people take on each day. Maybe it has to do with the disjointed, topical teaching that most of us receive from our churches. It may even be attributable to the lure of competing perspectives and images bombarding us from the ever-present media.

This research is described in greater detail in Think Like Jesus by George Barna (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2003).

But the bottom line is really quite simple. You are a priest of God, a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, and a member of His glorious body. Through your declaration of allegiance to Jesus and your stated desire to live with Him forever, you have a responsibility to be a functioning priest, minister, and member of the body.

The organized church has moved down a crooked path over the past two thousand years. The only way to get it back on track is for each of us to begin prayerfully exploring the original plan that God had for His people and then to be willing to respond faithfully to that plan. In this way, the Revolution that has begun to take root in our day will spread far and wide. And God will get what He has always been after.

y JP

1.1 belong to an institutional church. If I attended an organic church meeting this week, how would the experience be different from that of my church service?

In organic church life, the meetings look different every week. While the brothers and sisters in an organic church may prayerfully plan the focus of their own meetings (for instance, they might set aside a month for the body to concentrate on Ephesians 1), they do not plan a specific order of worship. Instead, everyone is free to function, share, participate, and minister spiritually during gatherings, so the creativity expressed in them is endless.

Participants do not know who will stand up and share next nor what they will share. There might be skits; there might be poems read; there might be new songs introduced and sung; there might be exhortations, testimonies, short teachings, revelations, and prophetic words. Because everyone is involved and people contribute spontaneously, boredom is not a problem. The most meaningful meetings are generally those in which everyone participates and functions.

Jesus Christ is the center of the meeting. He is glorified through the songs, the lyrics, the prayers, the ministry, and the sharing. The meeting is completely open for the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ through each member as He sees fit. In the words of 1 Corinthians 14:26, "every one of you" contributes something of Christ to the gathering. In organic church life, the corporate church meeting is an explosive outflow of what the Lord revealed of Himself to each member during the week.

These features are virtually absent in the typical institutional church cr>


2.Some have suggested that much of the structure and hierarchy within present-day churches grew out of the need to protect against potential cults and heresies in the early church. What are the safeguards against these dangers in organic churches?

Actually, we believe that, as a result of our fallen nature, people always move to adopt hierarchy and top-down relationships because they give human beings a sense of control and security.

Yet history teaches us that hierarchical organizations do not curb heresy. In fact, the testimony of church history is that they can foster and increase it. When the leaders of a denomination or movement embrace a heresy, it becomes perpetuated throughout all the churches connected to that denomination or movement.

On the contrary, when the autonomous nature of every church is preserved, the spreading of error is more likely to be localized. When a church is autonomous, it is difficult for an ambitious false teacher to seize control of unrelated churches.

By the way, virtually all the major cults are hierarchical organizations. (Notice we said "major" cults. We recognize that some cults are headed by a single leader who dominates all decisions and squelches any dissension. Sometimes these figures even claim to be leading a "house church." Yet any church headed by a person who is (1) dictatorial and (2) advances his own wisdom over that of Scripture is most certainly not headed by Christ and must be avoided at all costs.)

For the reasons outlined above, we believe hierarchical structures neither curb heresy nor prevent cultism. The only safeguard against heresy in a church is believers' mutual subjection to one another under the headship of Christ. And this requires face-to-face community and relationships that are centered on Christ.

The body of Christ has been in existence for two thousand years. That said, mutual subjection not only includes subjection to one another in a local fellowship, but subjection to the truth that the general body of Christ has agreed upon throughout the ages. In this way, the historic creeds can be helpful guideposts to keep a church on track when it comes to the essential teachings of our faith.

3. Why are you convinced that the first-century model of church is the one we must follow? Our twenty-first century world is so different from that of the first Christians.

We believe the Bible, not human tradition, is the divine guide for Christian faith and practice—including church practice.

The Bible is not silent on how the church ofJesus Christ functions. The New Testament gives a clear theology of the church. It also gives concrete examples of how that theology fleshes itself out.

Because the church is a spiritual organism, not an institutional organization, it is organic. (Evangelicals are in agreement that the church is an organism. Throughout the New Testament, the church is always depicted by living images—for example, one new man, a body, a bride, a family, a living temple made up of living stones.)

And because the church is organic, it has a natural expression—as all organisms do. For that reason, when a group of Christians follow their spiritual DNA, they will gather in a way that matches the DNA of the triune God—for they possess the same life that God Himself possesses. While we Christians are by no means divine, we have been privileged to be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Consequently, the DNA of the church is marked by the very traits that we find in the triune God; namely, mutual love, mutual dependence, mutual dwelling, mutual fellowship, and authentic community. As theologian Stanley Grenz once said, "The ultimate basis for our understanding of the church lies in its relationship to the nature of the triune God himself."

That said, the idea that the church should adapt to the present culture raises more questions than it answers. For example, which church practices should be discarded or adapted to the present culture and which are normative and should never be changed?

The DNA of the church produces certain identifiable features. Some of them are: the experience of authentic community, a familial love and devotion of its members one to another, the centrality of Jesus Christ, the native instinct to gather together without ritual, every-member functioning, the innate desire to form deep-seated relationships that are centered on Christ, and the internal drive for open-participatory gatherings. We believe that any church practice that obstructs these innate characteristics is unsound, and therefore, unbiblical.

While the seed of the gospel will naturally produce these particular features, how they are expressed will look slightly different from culture to culture. For instance, I (Frank) once planted an organic church in the country of Chile. The songs these believers wrote, the way they interacted with each other, the way they sat, what they did with their children, all looked different from organic churches born in Europe and the United States. However, the same basic features that reside in the DNA of the church were all present. And institutional church forms never appeared.

Healthy organic churches never produce a clergy system, a single pastor, a hierarchical leadership structure, or an order of worship that renders the majority passive. To our minds, such things rupture the church's genetic code and violate her native expression. They also run contrary to New Testament principles.

By Constantine's day, when the church become more concerned about its status in culture than its DNA, the form of the church began changing dramatically from what it was in the first century. New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce wisely writes, "When the church thinks more of her status than of her service, she has taken a wrong path and must immediately retrace her steps."' In this connection, we feel the church must retrace her steps and return to her biblical roots.

Put another way: Should we follow a model of church that is rooted in New Testament principle and example, or should we follow one that finds its origins in pagan traditions? That is the ultimate question that this book should lead us to address.

4. You said the Trinity is noted for its mutuality. Yet don't John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 teach that there is a hierarchy in the Godhead?

No. These passages have in view the Son's temporal relationship as a human being who voluntarily submitted Himself to His Father's will. In the Godhead, the Son and Father experience communality and mutual submission.

It is for this reason that historic orthodoxy rejects the eternal subordination of the Son of God. It instead accepts the temporal subordination of the Son in His incarnation.

As theologian Kevin Giles says, "Historic orthodoxy has never accepted hierarchical ordering in the Trinity."2 To paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, the Son is only inferior to the Father in relation to His manhood; He is equal with the Father in relation to the Godhead.

5. Throughout church history, various people and movements have called for a return to the New Testament model of church governance and practice. Do you see yourselves as part of one of these movements or something completely new?

God has always had a people who have stood outside the institutional church. Historians have called them "the radical reformation." Some historians have called them "the trail of blood" because they were persecuted savagely for their stance.'

E F. Bruce, A Mind for What Matters (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1990), 247.

See Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); The Trinity & Subordinationism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002); Gilbert Bilezikian, Community 101 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), Appendix. See John W. Kennedy, The Torch of the Testimony (Bombay: Gospel Literature Service, 1965); E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church. (Chambersburg, PA: Wipft & Stock Publishers, 1998); and Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2001).

These Christians, in every age, refused to conform to the institutional church of their day. They believed that the institutional church was a departure from, not a development of, the church that Jesus established. These nonconformists fiercely stood for the centrality ofJesus Christ, the every-member functioning of His body, the priesthood of all believers, and the oneness of the body of Christ. They held that torch high, and they were abused by their fellow Christians as a result. We (the authors) stand in that lineage.

6. You talk about how Christians are "conditioned to read the Bible with the lens handed to them by the Christian tradition to which we belong." How can I be sure you are not also interpreting the Bible to fit your own thoughts and experiences?

Every Christian who has ever lived interprets the Bible through the lens of his or her own experience and thoughts. We are no exception.

However, there is a strong consensus among evangelical scholars that the early church did not have a clergy, did not meet in sacred buildings, did not take the Lord's Supper outside of a full meal, did not have a fixed liturgy, and did not dress up for church meetings. In addition, the fact that the modern institutional church derived many of its practices from Greco-Roman paganism cannot be disputed. (This book provides the historical documentation.)

In short, we Christians have made acceptable and normative church practices that the New Testament neither teaches nor exemplifies. And we have abandoned those church practices that were acceptable and normative in the New Testament.

So the question really boils down to this: Are the practices of the institutional church (the clergy/laity system, salaried pastors, sacred buildings, the order of worship, etc.) God-approved developments to the church that the New Testament envisions? Or are they an unhealthy departure from it?

That is the question that we would like every reader to prayerfully consider.

7. While you attribute church practices like the building of sanctuaries and the rise of the clergy to pagan influences, don't humans naturally begin to organize and adapt to the surrounding culture?

If we obey our fallen nature, yes, we humans will organize and adapt to the world. One of the genius strokes of our God, however, is that He built into the DNA of the body of Christ people whose ministries were given to prevent this from happening. (See 1 Corinthians 3:5-15; 12:28-31; Ephesians 4:11-16; Acts 13-21.) These were itinerant apostolic workers who planted churches, left them on their own, then visited them periodically to equip, recenter, and encourage them. One of their tasks was to keep the churches from experiencing entropy. They also kept foreign elements out so that churches could grow healthy and remain true to their organic nature. Paul of Tarsus was such an itinerant worker, and his letters illustrate beautifully the role of such people.

Unfortunately, during the persecutions of the first and second century, the itinerant ministry died out. Nonetheless, it has been restored since then within organic churches. This particular ministry is an important check to keep them from gravitating toward the surrounding culture and adopting its values.

8. While you fault traditional churches for making members passive spectators, I not only attend Sunday morning service, but I belong to a church small group that sounds a lot like the organic church experience. We worship, study God's Word together, and turn to one another for support when we face challenges and crises. In my view, I have the best of both worlds.

If you feel that what you have described is the best of both worlds, then by all means, stay where you are. However, many of us have concerns about both. We have observed that most small groups attached to an institutional church have a leader present who is the head of the meetings. Thus to our minds, such meetings are directed by a human head who either controls or facilitates it.

I (Frank) have been in countless small group meetings of this nature across denominational lines. Never did I see a meeting that was completely under the headship of Jesus Christ in which all members came to that meeting to share their Lord with their sisters and brothers freely and without human control or interference.

All the gatherings operated more like a Bible study or traditional prayer meeting rather than a free-flowing, open-participatory gathering that is envisioned in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is made visible by the every-member functioning of His body.

I have met with some of the founders of the small group movement in the institutional church, and they tried to defend the idea that someone must lead such gatherings. I disagree. If God's people are properly equipped, they can have meetings that have no leader but Jesus Christ.

All that to say there is a huge difference between the typical small group that is attached to an institutional church and the organic church that is envisioned in the New Testament. Nevertheless, if a person feels comfortable with the former model of church, we believe he or she should remain in it until the Lord shows another path.

9.Some Christians are naturally drawn to traditional forms like liturgy and choral music, which help them connect with both God and the body of Christ through the ages. Do you believe the Holy Spirit will not work through those forms—or if he does, that it is not his preferred means of drawing others to himself? How would you back up that claim through Scripture?

We believe that the question "Can you prove from the Bible that the Holy Spirit will not work through a certain traditional practice?" is really the wrong one to ask since it cannot be answered honestly. It is an unprovable tenet because Scripture never addresses it. The question we should be asking is: "What does the Word of God teach about church practice?"

We can be certain that God does not endorse any church practice that violates New Testament principles. For instance, we believe the clergy/laity distinction violates the New Testament principle of the priesthood of all believers (see chapter 5).

To our minds, if we are willing to abandon all traditions that conflict with God's Word, the question that will dominate our thinking is: "What does the Word of God teach regarding His church—its purpose, its function, and its expression?"

This question provides a useful grid by which to discern whether or not a church structure is enhancing or stifling New Testament principles. Again, if a church structure violates a New Testament directive, then it should be challenged.

And this is what we want our readers to be asking and exploring.

Having said this, we do not doubt that God can, and undoubtedly does, work through practices invented by humans, that have no scriptural basis. That God still works through people in the institutional church is beyond dispute. Both authors owe our salvation and baptism to people laboring in the institutional church.

But just because God may use His people in a particular system does not mean that He approves of that system. Remember, God used and even blessed Israel at a time when she rejected His will to be their only king. They instead wanted to follow the other nations and have an earthly king. God granted their request. And He still loved and used His people despite their rejection of His revealed will.

lOIsn't much of our problem with church the fact that so often we go with the attitude of "What will I get out of it?" rather than "How can I honor and glorify God through my worship?" Wouldn't regaining the proper perspective of worship make all the difference?

No, not really. This question assumes two things: first, that the only reason for a church gathering is for individual Christian worship, and second, that church is a place to "go." (Go back and read the question carefully.) Both assumptions are without scriptural merit, yet they are imbedded in the Christian mind-set as a result of years of religious tradition. The New Testament knows nothing of a "worship service." And people cannot "go" to church. They are the church.

The early church met for the purpose of displaying Jesus Christ through the every-member functioning of Christ's body. The goal was to make Christ visible and to edify the whole church in the process. Mutual edification through mutual sharing, mutual ministry, and mutual exhortation was the aim.

To our thinking, what would make all the difference is if God's people were equipped and then encouraged to have meetings where every member shared the Christ they had encountered that week, freely and openly, as 1 Corinthians 14:26, 31 and Hebrews 10:25 exhort. The result: God would be seen and thus glorified.

Consider your physical body. When every member of your body functions, your personality is expressed. It is the same way with Christ. When each member of His body shares his or her portion of Christ, then Christ is assembled (see 1 Corinthians 12-14).

This dynamic is similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. When all the pieces are fitted together, we see the whole picture. But if only a few pieces are visible, we cannot understand the whole picture. It is not without significance, then, that the Greek word translated "church" (ekklesia) in the New Testament actually means "assembly." The church meeting is for the purpose of reassembling Jesus Christ on the earth.

I (Frank) have been in so many New Testament—styled meetings that I have lost count. But I can tell you that there is nothing quite like them. I will rehearse one quick story to give you the flavor of the response such a meeting can produce.

One of the brothers in an organic church I was a part of brought an unbelieving friend to one of our meetings. We met in a large living room. In the meeting, every member shared his or her experience with the Lord that week. Jesus Christ was revealed, exalted, shared, declared, made known, and testified to by each member of the body. The meeting was so full of life that there were no pauses and no silence. We heard from our Lord from every member of the body in that room. The flow of the Spirit was undeniable. A common theme emerged in the gathering, though no agenda had been established for it.

As the meeting was winding down, the unbeliever fell to his knees in the middle of the living room and cried out, "I want to be saved! I have seen God here!" This man was not prompted or asked to do this. There was no "altar call" or "salvation invitation." It just happened.

This is one of the things that occurs organically when Jesus Christ is made visi ble through His Body (see 1 Corinthians 14:24-25). I have watched this phenomenon take place numerous times in such gatherings—not to mention the transformation I have seen such meetings produce in believers.

11. Your book really disturbs me because I think some people may leave their churches after finishing it. I'm particularly concerned about the reader who decides to drop out of his or church and then fails to connect with another body of believers.

We hope that this book will give God's people permission to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, wherever that may lead them. No one should feel pressured to remain in a particular type of church if he or she feels the Lord is leading him or her out of it.

With that in mind, the advice we would offer to those who feel called to leave the institutional church is threefold. 1) Leave quietly and do not take anyone else with you. In other words, do not cause division. 2) Resist becoming bitter against the institutional church. If you have been hurt by people in it, take your pain to the cross. Harboring bitterness is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to get sick. Few things are as lethal. 3) Actively seek Christians to fellowship with around Jesus Christ. The Web site provides resources for those interested in organic church life and puts people in contact with churches that are exploring fresh ways to be faithful to the New Testament vision of church. Take the time to visit such churches (they all differ) and get connected. And if you feel so led, relocate to be part of one.

"What history teaches us is that men have never learned anything from it." - G. W. F. HEGEL, NINETEENTH-CENTURY GERMAN PHILOSOPHER

o oq"

The following summary is neither complete nor detailed. Note that all of the practices covered are postbiblical, postapostolic, and mostly influenced by pagan culture.


The Church Building—First constructed under Constantine around AD 327. The earliest church buildings were patterned after the Roman basilicas, which were modeled after Greek temples.

The Sacred Space—Christians borrowed this idea from the pagans in the second and third centuries. The burial places of the martyrs were regarded as "sacred." In the fourth century, church buildings were erected on these burial places, thus creating "sacred" buildings.

The Pastor's Chair—Derived from the cathedra, which was the bishop's chair or throne. This chair replaced the seat of the judge in the Roman basilica. Tax-Exempt Status for Churches and Christian Clergy—Emperor Constantine gave churches tax-exempt status in AD 323. He made clergy exempt from paying taxes in AD 313, a privilege that pagan priests enjoyed.

Stained-Glass Windows—First introduced by Gregory of Tours and brought to perfection by Suger (1081-1151), abbot of St. Denis.

Gothic Cathedrals—Twelfth century. These edifices were built according to the pagan philosophy of Plato.

The Steeple—Rooted in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian architecture and philosophy, the steeple was a medieval invention that was popularized and modernized by Sir Christopher Wren in London around 1666.

The Pulpit—Used in the Christian church as early as AD 250. It came from the Greek ambo, which was a pulpit used by both Greeks and Jews for delivering monologues.

The Pew—Evolved from the thirteenth through the eighteenth centuries in England.


The Sunday Morning Order of Worship—Evolved from Gregory's Mass in the sixth century and the revisions made by Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, the Free Church tradition, the Methodists, the Frontier-Revivalists, and the Pentecostals. The Centrality of the Pulpit in the Order of Worship—Martin Luther in 1523. Two Candles Placed on Top of the "Communion Table" and Incense Burning—Candles were used in the ceremonial court of Roman emperors in the fourth century. The Communion table was introduced by Ulrich Zwingli in the sixteenth century.

Taking the Lord's Supper Quarterly—Ulrich Zwingli in the sixteenth century.

The Congregation Standing and Singing When the Clergy Enters—Borrowed from the ceremonial court of Roman emperors in the fourth century. Brought into the Protestant liturgy by John Calvin.

Coming to Church with a Somber/Reverent Attitude—Based on the medieval view of piety. Brought into the Protestant service by John Calvin and Martin Bucer. Condemnation and Guilt over Missing a Sunday Service—Seventeenth-century New

England Puritans.

The Long "Pastoral Prayer" Preceding the Sermon—Seventeenth-century Puritans. The Pastoral Prayer Uttered in Elizabethan English—Eighteenth-century Methodists. The Goal of All Preaching to Win Individual Souls—Eighteenth-century Frontier-Revivalists.

The Altar Call—Instituted by seventeenth-century Methodists and popularized by

Charles Finney.

The Church Bulletin (written liturgy)—Originated in 1884 with Albert Blake Dick's stencil duplicating machine.

The "Solo" Salvation Hymn, Door-to-Door Witnessing, and Evangelistic Advertising/ Campaigning—D. L. Moody.

The Decision Card—Invented by Absalom B. Earle (1812-1895) and popularized by D. L. Moody.

Bowing Heads with Eyes Closed and Raising the Hand in Response to a Salvation

Message—Billy Graham in the twentieth century.

"The Evangelization of the World in One Generation" Slogan—John Mott around 1888. Solo or Choral Music Played during the Offering—Twentieth-century Pentecostals.


The Contemporary Sermon—Borrowed from the Greek sophists, who were masters at oratory and rhetoric. John Chrysostom and Augustine popularized the Greco-Roman homily (sermon) and made it a central part of the Christian faith.

The One-Hour Sermon, Sermon Crib Notes, and the Four-Part Sermon Outline—Seventeenth-century Puritans.


The Single Bishop (predecessor of the contemporary pastor.)—lgnatius of Antioch in early second century. Ignatius's model of one-bishop rule did not prevail in the churches until the third century.

The "Covering" Doctrine—Cyprian of Carthage, a former pagan orator. Revived under Juan Carlos Ortiz from Argentina and the "Fort Lauderdale Five" from the United States, creating the so-called "Shepherding-Discipleship Movement" in the 1970s. Hierarchical Leadership—Brought into the church by Constantine in the fourth century. This was the leadership style of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans.

Clergy and Laity—The word laity first appears in the writings of Clement of Rome (d. 100). Clergy first appears in Tertullian. By the third century, Christian leaders were universally called clergy.

Contemporary Ordination—Evolved from the second century to the fourth. It was taken from the Roman custom of appointing men to civil office. The idea of the ordained minister as the "holy man of God" can be traced to Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Chrysostom.

The Title "Pastor"—Catholic priests who became Protestant ministers were not universally called pastors until the eighteenth century under the influence of Lutheran



Christians Wearing Their "Sunday Best" for Church—Began in the late-eighteenth century with the Industrial Revolution and became widespread in the mid-nineteenth century. The practice is rooted in the emerging middle-class effort to become like their wealthy aristocrat contemporaries.

Clergy Attire—Began in AD 330 when Christian clergy started wearing the garb of Roman officials. By the twelfth century, the clergy began wearing everyday street clothes that distinguished them from the people.

The Evangelical Pastor's Suit—A descendant of the black scholar's gown worn by Reformation ministers, the black lounge suit of the twentieth century became the typical costume of the contemporary pastor.

The Clerical (Backwards) Collar—Invented by Rev. Dr. Donald McLeod of Glasgow in 1865.


The Choir—Provoked by Constantine's desire to mimic the professional music used in Roman imperial ceremonies. In the fourth century, the Christians borrowed the choir idea from the choirs used in Greek dramas and Greek temples.

The Boys Choir—Began in the fourth century, borrowed from the boys choirs used by the pagans.

Funeral Processions and Orations—Borrowed from Greco-Roman paganism in the third century.

The Worship Team—Calvary Chapel in 1965, patterned after the secular rock concert. CHAPTER 8: TITHING AND CLERGY SALARIES

Tithing—Did not become a widespread Christian practice until the eighth century. The tithe was taken from the 10 percent rent charge used in the Roman Empire and later justified using the Old Testament.

Clergy Salaries—Instituted by Constantine in the fourth century.

The Collection Plate—The alms dish appeared in the fourteenth century. Passing a collection plate began in 1662.

The Usher—Began with Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603). The predecessor of the usher is the church porter, a position that can be traced back to the third century.


Infant Baptism—Rooted in the superstitious beliefs that pervaded the Greco-Roman culture, it was brought into the Christian faith in the late second century. By the fifth century, it replaced adult baptism.

Sprinkling Replacing Immersion—Began in the late Middle Ages in the Western churches.

Baptism Separated from Conversion—Began in the early second century as a result of the legalistic view that baptism was the only medium for the forgiveness of sins.

The "Sinner's Prayer"—Originated with D. L. Moody and made popular in the 1950s through Billy Graham's Peace with God tract and later with Campus Crusade for Christ's Four Spiritual Laws.

Use of the Term "Personal Savior"—Spawned in the mid-1800s by the Frontier-Revivalist influence and popularized by Charles Fuller (1887-1968).

The Lord's Supper Condensed from a Full "Agape" Meal to Only the Cup and the Bread—

The late second century as a result of pagan ritual influences.


The Catholic Seminary—The first seminary began as a result of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The curriculum was based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, which was a blending of Aristotle's philosophy, Neoplatonic philosophy, and Christian doctrine.

The Protestant Seminary—Began in Andover, Massachusetts, in 1808. Its curriculum, too, was built on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.

The Bible College—Influenced by the revivalism of D. L. Moody, the first two Bible colleges were the Missionary Training Institute (Nyack College, New York) in 1882 and Moody Bible Institute (Chicago) in 1886.

The Sunday School—Created by Robert Raikes from Britain in 1780. Raikes did not found the Sunday school for the purpose of religious instruction. He founded it to teach poor children the basics of education.

The Youth Pastor—Developed in urban churches in the late 1930s and 1940s as a result of seeking to meet the needs of a new sociological class called "teenagers."


Paul's Letters Combined into a Canon and Arranged according to Descending Length—

Early second century.

Chapter Numbers Placed in the New Testament—University of Paris professor Stephen Langton in 1227.

Verses Added to New Testament Chapters—Printer Robert Stephanus in 1551.

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Enneagram Essentials

Enneagram Essentials

Tap into your inner power today. Discover The Untold Secrets Used By Experts To Tap Into The Power Of Your Inner Personality Help You Unleash Your Full Potential. Finally You Can Fully Equip Yourself With These “Must Have” Personality Finding Tools For Creating Your Ideal Lifestyle.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment