The Purpose of the “Church”

The church is not a worship service- it is a government outpost

By Dale Moreau

The Church Is Not a Worship Service — It Is a Government Outpost

Most Christians think they are attending a worship service.

The New Testament thinks they are assembling at a government outpost.

That difference is not semantic. It is structural. It reshapes how we understand authority, gathering, discipleship, and even the meaning of “church.”

When Jesus says in Gospel of Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church,” He does not announce the creation of a religious event. The word ekklesia did not mean “worship service” in the first century. It referred to an assembly—an authorized gathering called for civic purpose. In Israel’s Scriptures, it echoes the qāhāl, the covenant assembly gathered before Yahweh at Sinai. That assembly was not convened for inspiration. It was convened for covenant. Law was given. Allegiance was declared. Boundaries were established.

Assemblies govern.

If we read Scripture inside a Divine Council framework, this becomes even clearer. The biblical story unfolds in a world of contested authority. Deuteronomy 32 describes the nations allotted and divided. Psalm 82 portrays corrupt rulers judged by the Most High. Authority over the nations is not abstract; it is territorial, personal, and accountable. The earth is not spiritually neutral ground.

Then Christ ascends.

Paul writes in Letter to the Ephesians 1:20–23 that Jesus is seated “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion.” That is governmental language. It is jurisdictional language. It is cosmic enthronement language. The ascension is not a sentimental goodbye; it is a coronation.

But what happens next is the part most Christians have never been taught to see.

In Ephesians 3:10, Paul says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. The church is not merely worshiping upward; it is declaring outward. The gathered assembly becomes the visible announcement that a new King reigns and that His jurisdiction has begun to press into contested territory.

That is not metaphor. That is cosmology.

An embassy is foreign soil planted inside another nation. It carries the authority of its homeland while physically existing in contested space. It does not blend into the culture around it. It represents another throne.

This is how the early Christians understood themselves. When believers gathered in homes under Roman rule, they were not hosting a spiritual event. They were publicly confessing that another Lord reigned. In a world where “Caesar is Lord” was political orthodoxy, “Jesus is Lord” was a counter-claim. It was not merely devotional language. It was jurisdictional defiance.

Every Lord’s Supper was covenant renewal under a different King. Every baptism was a transfer of allegiance. Every prayer was petition directed toward a throne higher than Rome’s.

Modern church culture has quietly reduced gathering to atmosphere. We evaluate sermons by emotional impact, music by aesthetic preference, and community by personal fulfillment. But if the church is a government outpost, the gathering cannot be reduced to inspiration. It is about allegiance. It is about formation. It is about embodying the rule of heaven in visible, lived obedience.

When believers forgive one another, something more than relational harmony occurs. Rival powers see a kingdom that does not fracture under offense. When believers endure suffering without renouncing Christ, something more than personal resilience is on display. Allegiance is being demonstrated. When believers refuse idolatry—whether ancient or modern—the boundaries of heaven’s jurisdiction are being asserted in contested space.

The rulers and authorities are not spectators to a religious performance. According to Paul, they are learning something through the church. That means our gathering has cosmic visibility. The church is not performing for God; it is bearing witness before the unseen realm that the throne has changed hands.

This is why reducing church to a worship service is not a harmless shift in vocabulary. It flattens the metaphysical drama of the New Testament. It domesticates a movement that was born as a declaration of regime change. The earliest Christians did not believe they were attending weekly encouragement sessions. They believed they were participating in the visible manifestation of a kingdom that had invaded history.

If that sounds dramatic, it is because the New Testament is dramatic. The ascension of Christ is not spiritual poetry. It is a claim that all authority in heaven and on earth now belongs to Him. An authority that comprehensively cannot remain abstract. It must take shape somewhere. It must have an embodied presence. It must be represented.

That representation is the church.

When believers gather, heaven plants its flag. Not in spectacle. Not in triumphalism. But in covenant loyalty, embodied obedience, and public confession. The assembly becomes the living announcement that this territory, however contested, is not ultimately owned by the powers that claim it.

Most Christians walk into church wondering whether they will feel uplifted.

The New Testament envisions believers walking into assembly aware that they are stepping into an embassy of a King whose authority extends far above every ruler and power.

The difference is not stylistic.

It is cosmic.

And once you see the church as a government outpost rather than a worship service, you cannot unsee it.

What Does The Disciple Mean By These Words?

The pendulum of my christian experience has swung to either extreme over the last 30 years.

During much of that time I would have to say that I was pre-occupied with my own status among my brothers and with God. I was what some would call a "works" man.

I spent a lot of time trying to understand how to improve my character and be an example to others because I wanted others, christian and non, to know "the power of God" to change their lives. That was my witness because I didn't think too much of the door to door type of witnessing or the typical methods of "winning souls".

As I think about it now, there was nothing really wrong with this approach. If more christians had this type of attitude there would probably be many more souls added to the church daily.

That would be good.

However, I don't know if that would be enough.

I don't know about you but I have been coming to a realization over the past decade or so. A realization that has actually changed the way that I look at my walk with Christ and God. It hasn't been Earth shattering. But, then again, still, small, voices rarely are.

I don't know whether you have thought this or not, but, when I listen to most sermons and when I talk to most self professed christians, I rarely hear anything about loving one another or loving sinners. Not only do I not hear anything about it, I don't see self professed christians loving anyone but themselves.

I am not joking.

When is the last time you heard a parishener say anything compassionate about their pastor or any church leader, let alone the alcoholic down the block? When is the last time you saw a fellow congregant go out of their way to do something for someone just because Jesus would do it?

I'm not talking about the church food bank program or the weekly drive to get more people to attend a evangelistic meeting. Those don't count because some do those things just to be seen.

It's a good question to say the least.

We hear a lot from the church about this type of person or that type of person being bad. Many sermons do nothing more than to sow seeds of division rather than reconciliation. Let's face it, there is a lot of hate in the church.

I was reading in the first epistle of John, chapter 2 and ran across this:

6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

 7Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

 8Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

 9He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

 10He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

 11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

What exactly did the apostle mean by this passage? Is it relevant now? If so, how does it apply?

I'm just asking....

Jesus Wasn't "Just Talkin'".

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When Jesus spoke, He mean't what He said. That was one thing about Jesus that attracted so many people to Him. He was genuine. He had personal convictions. He just didn't do or say things because it was what was "expected", "appropriate", or, "politically correct". 

Jesus said things that were, first and foremost, true. Things that were helpful to others. Things that revealed the true nature and character of the Father. He kept His own commandments in what and how He spoke. "Love to God and love your neighbor as you do yourself". "Say things to people you would want them to say to you".

Do you remember the story about when He was teaching in a home and had a company of conservative preachers sitting by and watching Him? For a refresher here's the story from Luke 5.

Jesus cures a paralytic in soul and body^17-20 One day while Jesus was teaching, some Pharisees and experts in the Law were sitting near him. They had come out of every village in Galilee and Judea as well as from Jerusalem. God’s power to heal people was with him. Soon some men arrived carrying a paralytic and they kept trying to carry him in to put him down in front of Jesus. When they failed to find a way of getting him in because of the dense crowd, they went up on to the top of the house and let him down, bed and all, through the tiles, into the middle of the crowd in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “My friend, your sins are forgiven.”²¹ The scribes and the Pharisees began to argue about this, saying, “Who is this man who talks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins? Only God can do that.”²² Jesus realised what was going on in their minds and spoke straight to them.^23-24 “Why must you argue like this in your minds? Which do you suppose is easier—to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But to make you realise that the Son of Man has full authority on earth to forgive sins—I tell you,” he said to the man who was paralysed, “get up, pick up your bed and go home!”^25-26 Instantly the man sprang to his feet before their eyes, picked up the bedding on which he used to lie, and went off home, praising God. Sheer amazement gripped every man present, and they praised God and said in awed voices, “We have seen incredible things today.”

When you read between the lines at verse 21 and 22, you realize, by the response that Jesus gives to the preachers, that they were probably saying something like:

"Boy, we never thought we would hear this Jesus guy tell a bald faced lie in front of so many people. He's only saying that to make this poor guy feel better. No one can forgive anyone else's sins. Now we have Him. Everybody here has heard Him commit blasphemy. This will be a slam dunk case against Him." 

Once Jesus realized what they were thinking and plotting, He says something to the effect:

"Oh, so you think I am just talking? You think I am just trying to make this poor paralyzed guy feel better so he'd leave us alone? Hey, I don't work the way you folks do. 
So, since we're just talking here, and you don't think my words carry any weight... In your minds it would have been just as easy for me to tell this guy to 'get up and walk' as it was to forgive him his sins, right?
Well, just so you know that I mean what I say.... Hey, paralyzed guy, get up and walk for these men."

 When we read stories like this one it shows something that is hard for us in the 21st century to grasp but was one of the chief stumbling blocks of people who actually lived with and around Jesus.

This story reveals how utterly human Jesus appeared to those around Him. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". People during that time had a very difficult time believing that Jesus was divine. We, on the other hand, have a very difficult time believing that Jesus was human.

What does Jesus say about divorce?

Up front, this article isn't meant to be a complete study on the subject. But, you can use it as a building block if you like. Matthew 5 is the first instance in the Gospels that Jesus says anything about divorce. Let's look at it.

A lot of people in church (and out of it) struggle long and hard about the issue of divorce. Is it biblical? Is it a sin? What's does God think about me? What do others think about me?

Women, I think, really have it hard. That's because so many of them are stuck in a marriage with an abusive man. They want out. But, don't know if it's the right thing.

That's probably because there is a lot of misunderstanding and mis- (or dys-) interpretation of the Bible going on in an abusive "christian" relationship.

Let's face it, religion is used to cover up a whole lot of sins. The American slave trade was justified by religion. The murderous inquisition during Europe's middle ages was justified by religion. A lot of the turmoil that has gone on in the middle east from the time Abraham left Iraq to the present day, is justified by religion.

And, unfortunately, a lot of "christians" do a lot of bad things in their marriages leaving their spouses (men and women) wondering "how long can I stay in this marriage?" as they turn to their bibles looking for comfort and direction.

So, what does the bible, or, Jesus say about divorce? How should a person today read the scriptures and get a good understanding of it?

One thing to remember is this, while the bible does have a lot of answers, it doesn't have a definitive answer for each and every situation that you may find yourself in. It was written in a different time for a different purpose.

But understanding some of what the Bible does say about divorce will empower you. Let's take a look.

What Does The Bible Say About Divorce?

So, in Matthew chapter 5 the words of Christ are hard to misunderstand. In the passage below He's being pretty direct about it.

Matthew 5:31-32 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

In this passage Jesus does not address the issue of alcoholism, physical or mental abuse, addiction in any form from pornography to gambling to drugs. What if your spouse is a thief? What if your spouse is a chronic liar? What if your spouse is a murderer? What if your spouse has a mental problem or split personality? What if your spouse is leading or lead a double life that you are unaware of? And these are only some of the things that actually go on in marriages today.

The bible doesn't address these issues. But, I would suspect that Jesus would be just as concerned about someone in these situations too. Whether divorce is appropriate is between the individual and God.

Looking a little closer at what the Lord is saying in this passage can shed a little more light on how people interpret things.

Who exactly is He talking to? It seems He's talking to the men in the audience. So, that raises the question, "why isn't He addressing the women too?"

Now the context of this statement is interesting because in verses 27-28 Jesus addresses the issue of men "lusting" after women. He goes on to tell the men that it's adultery just as much as physically sleeping with a woman who you're  not married to.

²⁷ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:²⁸ But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And He seems to be addressing a common saying about a common practice that was going on at the time.

Jesus Talks To Men About Divorce

Jesus is talking appears to imply or suggest that men were divorcing their wives for petty and/or selfish (self indulgent) reasons. In fact, when you read it in context, it almost seems that men were able to divorce their wives for any reason they wanted as long as they gave her the "certificate".

Now first and foremost, there is a spiritual component to the marriage relationship. The bible has plenty of references to marriage representing God's relationship with His people. But, I also believe that Jesus also addressed the real life practical problems that people were living with day by day.

And from a practical standpoint, the way that I read it, Jesus, was trying to get men to be a little more responsible about their commitment to their families and to society in general.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that women are more responsible than men. I am only pointing out what is actually being said about divorce in these particular verses. And, how I interpret them.

So, why is The Lord only talking to men in this passage? Lets consider several things that might give us more clues.

1. At that time, in that culture, society was male dominated and patriarchal. Basically, whatever a man said about his wife and family was the "law". The man made all the decisions and women had few rights as we know them today.

2. Women basically had no "rights" as we understand rights today. They couldn't file for divorce. And, for the most part, they wouldn't even want to because they were dependent on their families and husbands to provide a roof over their heads, food to eat, children to love.

And if they did get divorced they would become a drain on society. They and sometimes their children would become beggars and street people because they didn't have access to the "privileges" of society that men did (there are several passages that speak of the God's people looking out for the widows-women without husbands and orphans).

3. Since that society was set up to be male dominated, it was the man in the relationship who would initiate a divorce and not the other way around. Think about it... It was a more common practice for a man to have more than one wife than the other way around.

For us today, one of the main reasons (not the only reason) that people get divorced is that they "want to move on". Back then, the guys didn't have that problem. If they wanted to move on, they did. And their wife really had no say in the matter.

Divorce, in this setting, seemed more of an "arbitrary" thing. Not something that is necessary as in someone being unfaithful, abused, or, for any other good to those involved.

4. I suspect that The Lord was primarily talking to men in this passage because men were making it a practice to divorce their wives "willy nilly". Either when they got tired of them or when they couldn't afford them and the family, or, when the women in the home just didn't get along.

And then justifying their actions by saying "God says I can do this!" And Jesus hates it when God's people misrepresents what His Father is like, has said, or is doing.

Now, to sum up... when talking about divorce, at least in this passage (and it's context) , Jesus is pretty clear. Men cannot divorce their wives just because they have see someone sexier or more appealing. Divorce, in these verses, is only lawful in the case of infidelity.

As I read it, He doesn't really address the women in this passage. Maybe that's because of the culture of the time. I don't know. But, I would assume that the same would hold to them also.

Does Dr. Ben Carson Miss The Mark?

After watching Dr. Carson's speech at the prayer breakfast, it raised more questions in my mind than it answered. Dr. Carson brought up the biblical concept of tithing as a model of tax policy for a secular nation. I have to ask myself if this is sound.

While I do believe that the tithing system is a fair system as the good doctor points out, it's purpose was for the support of the religious system of the people of Israel and not for the support and financing of public works, a secular educational system, an interstate highway system, and on and on.

The second thought that comes to mind is that the notions of "the world" and "the church/kingdom of God" being two separate and distinct entities.

Two passages of scripture will point this out. Christ speaks of "the world" as being separate for His people, His kingdom, and His methods.

1)John 17:11-15
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 

2)John 18:35-37
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (use secular methods and tactics like politics, armed resistance, taxation) , that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

For christians to be true to the Master, they really need to understand that God and Christ are not trying to establish an Earthly government. They've already tried that and it didn't work. Collectively, men were not able to fulfill that ideal.

Dr. Carson is a brilliant neuro-surgeon. I have admired him for years. However, I have to admit that I wasn't that impressed with his thoughts on public policy. To be fair, and he admitted as much, he didn't have time to elaborate much.

However, what he has suggested seemed to conflate the spiritual with the secular. And, hasn't been even attempted by any other nation since old testament times. Not even by present day Israel. Seems a little naive.

What Does Jesus Say About Love?

Love

You can find a lot of places in the bible where Jesus talks about love. And back then, when Jesus was on Earth, the one word that we use for "love" had several different meanings. It really depends on what you're looking for.

The word used to talk about God's love for humankind was different than the word that was used to talk about how people should love one another. And, those words were different from the word used to talk about romantic love.

One passage that comes to mind is in John chapter 13:34-35.

34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

In this passage Christ is talking to his disciples about how He wants them to act toward each other. Jesus is so serious about what He's going to tell them that He calls it a "commandment".  This isn't a suggestion. And He gives the reason why.

Christ tells his little band of spiritual brothers that they need to develop a love for each other. A love that is just like the love that He had for them. He probably knew it wouldn't be easy. There was a lot of jealousy and ego involved. But, it was important for a couple of reasons.

Reason number one that Jesus commanded his followers to love one another is that without love and respect and self sacrifice for fellow believers, not a whole lot would get done. In fact, the whole operation would fall apart and the disciples would be prone to go back to their separate lives and the mission would fall apart.

And, reason number two, was that if non-believers actually saw true love at work among the disciples, then it would be a powerful witness about the life changing power of the gospel. Others would be drawn to the message that Jesus had left with the early church. And thus the kingdom would spread.


Think about that for a moment....

What would happen if the outside world saw that Christians (of each denomination) actually loved one another? How would that play on CNN? How would it play on Saturday Night Live?

While there may have been other things that Jesus says about love, this one in particular deserves a little more attention I think.

Why Christ Doesn't Need Christianity

Sailboat (Photo credit: Small Streams)

Just because Christianity claims Jesus as its own does not mean that Christ automatically claims Christianity as his own.

+Shane Hipps pulls back the curtain in this particular article and makes it plain about how the christian should look at religion. Especially their own.

He points out that it was not Christ's intention to start a "new denomination".  Christ's purpose was to reveal His Father and redeem mankind. That's it. While He may have known that his followers would have to have some degree of organization in order to carry on the mission He gave to them. He knew it was the mission and not the organization that had the pre-eminence.

John 3:16 stands as a good reminder: "God so loved the world"....not the church...

Read the full article: Shane Hipps: Why Christ Doesn't Need Christianity:

'via Blog this'