Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Church On the Net
4 followers -
Christian Resources
Christian Resources

4 followers
About
Posts

Post is pinned.Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Matthew 6:34: "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." http://dlvr.it/QThzSH

Post has attachment
Matthew 23:12: Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. http://dlvr.it/QTZpLs

Post has attachment
Prophecy: The Leviathan Spirit Will Lift You to Break You: Ryan LeStrange has a prophetic word regarding a spirit he calls the Leviathan spirit. In a recent video, he says this spirit's "assignment" is sow seeds of pride and lift up believers just to break them. How can Christians overcome this spirit? Watch the video to find out. http://dlvr.it/QTZTx2

Post has attachment
Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? http://dlvr.it/QTThnc

Post has attachment
Psalm 135:5-7: For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. http://dlvr.it/QTPCgg

Post has attachment
Psalm 34:8: Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him! http://dlvr.it/QTHdtf

Post has attachment
Glorify God—Even When Your Work Isn't Perfect: Artists, musicians and even leaders share something in common, an innate drive to make something beautiful, something inspirational that points to an all-loving God. The instinct to create comes from the Creator Himself, whose first act toward humanity was to create something He deemed "good." But what is God's definition of "good"? When He created the stars, the planets, the skies and the seas, He said they were "good." His creation is divine, but individually created parts do not necessarily fit our boxes or ideas of "perfect." The cosmos is reproduced through violent and chaotic physical processes. Certain laws of physics and nature seem limiting and counteractive. Even music is best perceived by human ears when harmonic frequencies are not precisely tuned to perfect pitch. Yet we all know this was exactly how God intended things to be, and He is proud of His creation. So how can we adopt God's perspective on creation, creating things He would deem good without getting stuck in perfectionism? Here are three ways to recognize the difference between perfectionism and excellence: Perfectionism never stops tweaking. Often the only difference between a brilliant creator and a successful one is that the successful one dared to call his work complete. If an author never finishes a book, there is no book to read. If a painter never stops painting, there is no canvas to display in a museum. I imagine any author or painter could look at most of their "completed" works and give many examples of what could be changed, tweaked or thrown out. But they don't. Eventually, they come to a place of realizing what they created was "good." The spirit of perfectionism says your work is never good enough, and it never will be. On the other hand, the spirit of excellence learns to recognize when you have done your best. Only the creator of the work knows what has gone into the work. But if you can develop a keen sense of accomplishment, a sense of knowing you gave your all to a project, you can rest assured you have created something worthwhile. As a leader of creative people and projects, I encourage you to know when to call it quits and just put it out there. Perfectionism defines your identity—wrongly. If you ever find yourself in a place where criticism of your work absolutely destroys your sense of self, you might have a perfectionistic spirit. A mature creator learns that investing effort and personality into a project does not mean that the creator's worth or value as a person is defined by that project. Author and professor Brené Brown says: "Perfectionism is not the same thing as striving to be your best. Perfectionism is the belief that if we live perfect, look perfect and act perfect, we can minimize or avoid the pain of blame, judgment and shame. It's a shield. It's a 20-ton shield that we lug around thinking it will protect us when, in fact, it's the thing that's really preventing us from flight." Creatives should always strive to do their best work. But if you are looking for self-validation in your work, or a sense of identity or purpose to come from it, you will always hide behind that work. You will fluctuate in personal worth depending on the ebbs and flows of projects. Learn to hold creative projects with an open hand. People may discredit your work or downright hate it, but that doesn't mean they hate you. Their feelings or expressions about your work do not invalidate your ability to create or take great risks. Perfectionism does not embrace the beauty of blemish. Anyone who has ever felt intense love for another person as a parent or a lover has realized how beautiful imperfection can be. A freckle on a face, a birthmark on a shoulder, a gap between two front teeth, whatever it may be, when a person begins to truly love another, he realizes how these little "imperfections" are the very characteristics that make an individual distinct and original. Like human features, creative work is more beautiful when it is authentic. Perfectionism will polish something so much it eventually becomes nondescript. It's the same as so many other projects. Works that are truly great or beautiful carry elements of our human messiness in them. Art that "feels" human carries the human experience—the pain, joy, struggle and triumph. As creators and leaders, we must embrace the scars of our battles. Allow creativity to flow from your heart. It may not have perfect edges, exact lines or precise coloring, but if it has your personal touch, it will be inspirational, beautiful and excellent. {eoa} Joshua Mohline is director of WorshipU (worshipu.com), the online school of worship from Bethel Music. With a background as a worship leader in settings from small to large, he has been a part of the Bethel Church worship teams since 2012. He facilitates the worship school as it equips and empowers thousands of worship leaders and teams worldwide. http://dlvr.it/QTHLHB

Post has attachment
Should the Apostolic Usurp the Authority of Pastors, Churches?: Recently I have been reading some articles critical of NAR (the so-called new apostolic reformation) which (oftentimes) correctly calls attention to some abuses perpetrated in the name of the apostolic. When a friend told me I should respond to one article in particular, I smiled when I read it because I had nothing to rebut except a few things written that I attribute to misunderstandings regarding language, perspective and intent. One of the primary fears some opponents of the NAR have is that the apostolic movement can be (or is) harmful to and can overthrow pastors and churches as we know it. That is to say they are concerned that leaders will use their (so-called) apostolic title and or office to usurp authority over the church and even force some pastors or churches to submit to them in a particular region. Now I must say that based on my own experience, this is possible but not probable in my estimation. Since the mid-1980s, I have only seen this happen a few times (once upon a time a false apostle tried to usurp my pastoral authority and take over the local church I founded in the late 1980s), and I heard of one situation where a person claimed to be the "apostle over a city" but few pastors submitted to him (most pastors have enough discernment not to be fooled by such braggadocios nonsense) and the said so-called apostle quickly crashed and burned and lost everything anyway. To be fair, I have heard of far more so-called prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors that abuse their power (to seduce women and solicit funds for themselves and more) than I have heard of leaders coming in the name of an apostle title. In spite of this, I do not hear of anybody calling for the end of pastoral or evangelistic ministry since the true and bonafide leaders far outweigh the bad. No, the way forward should be to continue to refine, evolve and work towards attaining a more biblical view regarding our orthodoxy and orthopraxy. One well-meaning and good leader recently questioned me for saying in an article I wrote that the church will eventually go from a pastoral paradigm to an apostolic. (They most likely perceived I was referring to the apostolic overthrowing the pastoral model of church and leadership.) They did not understand the fact that I was not referring to apostolic leaders usurping authority over pastors and churches but that my hope was that the body of Christ would go back to the "Way of Christ and His original apostles"—which is the NT pattern of making disciples and multiplying churches. I was referring to paradigmatic change—which has to do with a change of thinking regarding the church that would eventuate in an embrace of the NT pattern of church which elevates and never dissipates pastors and churches (which can be done with or without the use of the title "apostle.") That being said, any pastor or church that partners with an apostolic leader should do so of their own volition, not because of being manipulated but because they believe that aligning with said apostolic leader will maximize their efforts regarding the spread of His gospel. I have seen true apostolic leaders edify pastors and churches hundreds of times both in the NY region and in the global church. Am I saying there is no abuse in the apostolic? No. Although I have rarely witnessed apostolic leadership hurt pastors and churches in the context of my region, I cannot speak for other nations and cities outside NYC where I am unfamiliar with their history and context. I have witnessed some extremes and misuse of the title in other ways as I have already enumerated in past articles (see "the NAR and the Restoration of Apostolic Ministry Today"). Extreme statements and practices are a common problem historically whenever the body of Christ attempts to restore a new biblical truth. Part of the confusion in the topic at hand stems from the use of the title apostle as an office instead of a function. This is due to the fact that apostle is used as an office in the first chapter of the book of Acts when Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:20) since the Greek word is episcopè, which, means an office like that of the episcopos. Of course, Peter used this word because the original 12 apostles of the Lamb did have the ecclesial office of apostle conferred upon them by Jesus. (Because their teaching was to be normative for the whole body of Christ for all time as is recorded in the writings of the NT Scriptures and as is illustrated in practice when they convened the first ecumenical council to direct the future of the church as recorded in Acts 15.) Unfortunately, many in the apostolic restoration movement interpret the passage in Acts 1:20 to mean that those called to serve in apostolic ministry have been given a permanent office that never changes irrespective of where they minister geographically and who they are ministering to. Only the original 12 apostles of the Lamb have that permanent office. Every other apostolic leader since then only has limited apostolic function related to their particular sphere of influence and is only contingent as far as their teaching and pattern of behavior align with the teachings of the original 12 apostles. That being said, I have taught since the 1980s that the word "apostolic" is governmental not just ministerial—and describes a limited function, even moreso than the other four cluster gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, which means that a person may function apostolically in their church or network but that doesn't make them an apostle everywhere they go, since their level of governance in their ministry is limited to churches and networks in which they have oversight (see 2 Corinthians 10:10-14). For example, I may function as an apostle in my church and network but that doesn't mean I have the same kind of apostolic influence when I minister in a Methodist church or in another country. The best I can do is preach in another context as a prophetic voice or as a teacher of biblical principles, but I cannot go to churches or nations outside the scope of my governance and claim to be their apostle in their context unless they, of their own volition and leading, ask me to serve in that capacity. Because of the above, the past several years I have moved away from using the term "office" in conjunction with the apostolic since it connotes permanent institutional ecclesial authority instead of a mere (limited) function. Because I was taught since the 1980s by many in the Charismatic Movement that the apostolic was an office, I was using this language for many years until recently when I realized it did not comport with my view that it is a function limited to a particular sphere of authority (as mentioned in 2 Corinthians 10:10-15). Even some of my old articles and a book I wrote may contain that language (which I will eventually revise). The biggest danger I see in teaching the apostolic is an office instead of a function is because those who think they minister in the office of apostle may be more prone to think they have institutional ecclesial authority in wherever region or church group they minister to,which I totally disagree with. In summary, let me close with some final points: 1. The apostolic is a function and not an office and should never be used to manipulate and or usurp authority over pastors and churches 2. Pastors and churches can voluntarily submit to and or align with apostolic leaders if they so choose 3. The apostolic ministry gift today is a limited function and not an office 4. True apostolic leaders will edify the Body of Christ and be instruments of fostering biblical unity (Ephesians 4:12-13; 2 Corinthians 13) 5. The restoration of the apostolic paradigm should serve to recognize and release the NT pattern of disciple making and the multiplication of churches. We should plant movements and not mere myopic churches. 6. Recognizing apostolic function can make way for entrepreneurial visionary church leadership with a focus on expanding kingdom influence more than shepherding one congregation in one community 7. Recognizing apostolic function can release those called primarily to pastoral leadership from the pressure of thinking extra-locally, so they can focus on their assignment of caring for the congregation they were called to serve and let the apostolic leaders they are connected with focus on the community, church planting and beyond 8. All of the five cluster gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 should work together—and not in competition with each other—to equip the saints 9. We in the global apostolic movement are still evolving in our understanding and will continue to do so until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (see Ephesians 4:11-13) 10. All true apostolic leaders should endeavor to mimic the servant leadership style of Jesus, who led by washing the feet of those He worked with (John 13). Consequently, any so-called "apostle" who attempts to use their title (as a big A instead of a small A apostle) to usurp the leadership of pastors and churches is not a true apostle and should be called out by the rest of the Body of Christ in their region of influence. http://dlvr.it/QTCywy
Wait while more posts are being loaded