"So how things at <insert name of your church here>?”
Such is a question we may often find ourselves asked as we meet with other Christians.
Denoting as it does, a vibrant interest in the welfare of the lampstand in another corner of the vineyard, when we receive the question, how do we respond?
How challenging a question! How are our churches faring in reality? What is the worth of our perspective to such a question? Is a casual “yes, going well thanks” accurate?
There is only one whose piercing gaze could know the absolute truth of our church's welfare. He who knows the hearts and minds of all men, weighs the motives and sees all.
Only the Lord who walks in the midst could truly know the answer to a question we so often have directed at ourselves.
There were of course, seven churches that were blessed with accurate knowledge of their state, for the Lord wrote to them and explained to them clearly where they stood in his estimation. Perhaps we have often wondered as we have read Revelation 2 and 3, what the Lord would have to say about our own church. Perhaps there have been times where we felt certain characteristics described by the Lord accurately portray an aspect of our own church's circumstances and challenges.
It is sometimes easier to have a more accurate assessment ready on our lips of another church - for examination of others is always easier that self examination, this is a true principle on a personal as well as a collective basis.
It was a revelation. How revealing it turned out to be for some of these churches.
One of the intriguing aspects of the letters to the seven churches, is that in reality there was only one letter. It was 22 chapters long and each church received it. In the long letter they received, each of the seven churches would read a section that was particularly relevant to them, the special letter to their church. And yet, how interesting that each of those churches was also given sensitive information about 6 other churches.
Would those at Ephesus with their lack of genuine love have found to their surprise that Pergamos was commended? Would it have been with some shock that other churches read of the true state of Sardis so contrary to the reputation they had?
Would some in Thyatira have been moved with compassion on reading the contents of the letter to Smyrna, and would those of Philadelphia read their own letter with gratitude only to have their thoughts quickly turn to their brethren of Laodicea in such desperate need of spiritual sustenance and eyesalve?
In Smyrna we have an church which was rich in its poverty, and in Laodicea we have an church poverty stricken despite its wealth.
Thyatira, though tolerating Jezebel, knew something of ‘love, service and faith’. A little Ephesian intolerance for Jezebel and some Thyatiran love in Ephesus would have greatly enhanced both churches.
Why did the Lord deem it appropriate that all churches receive each others letters? Would this not constitute a gross breach of inter church decorum? Was it not more appropriate that some of these things should be dealt with privately?
As much as they were seven readily identifiable, separate churches they all belonged to the church of God.
Surely, there was an obligation to help one another!
Pergamos was geographically the closest church to Ephesus. One wonders however, whether there was any gatherings being organised between these two churches! Ephesus was commended for its handling of the Nicolaitan problem whilst Pergamos was censured for tolerating these people in their midst! Was there not an opportunity for those of Ephesus to provide support to their brethren of Pergamos in this matter? Was there not an opportunity for those Pergamos to humble themselves and seek their brethren in Ephesus’ advice in dealing with this problem in their midst? And might it not have occurred to them that in doing so, they were providing the ecclesia of Ephesus the opportunity to respond in love – the love which the Lord had identified as being so lacking in Ephesus?
Yes, there were opportunities in the region of Asia Minor for love and inter church cooperation after these letters arrived in their various destinations. There was scope to help one another.
It seems that in allowing each church to receive all seven letters, the Lord was allowing each church to see they were not alone. He is the vine, they are the branches.
He is in the midst. By being connected to him in their centre, they were connected also to one another.
What would the Lord say about our church?
Such is a question we may often find ourselves asked as we meet with other Christians.
Denoting as it does, a vibrant interest in the welfare of the lampstand in another corner of the vineyard, when we receive the question, how do we respond?
How challenging a question! How are our churches faring in reality? What is the worth of our perspective to such a question? Is a casual “yes, going well thanks” accurate?
There is only one whose piercing gaze could know the absolute truth of our church's welfare. He who knows the hearts and minds of all men, weighs the motives and sees all.
Only the Lord who walks in the midst could truly know the answer to a question we so often have directed at ourselves.
There were of course, seven churches that were blessed with accurate knowledge of their state, for the Lord wrote to them and explained to them clearly where they stood in his estimation. Perhaps we have often wondered as we have read Revelation 2 and 3, what the Lord would have to say about our own church. Perhaps there have been times where we felt certain characteristics described by the Lord accurately portray an aspect of our own church's circumstances and challenges.
It is sometimes easier to have a more accurate assessment ready on our lips of another church - for examination of others is always easier that self examination, this is a true principle on a personal as well as a collective basis.
It was a revelation. How revealing it turned out to be for some of these churches.
One of the intriguing aspects of the letters to the seven churches, is that in reality there was only one letter. It was 22 chapters long and each church received it. In the long letter they received, each of the seven churches would read a section that was particularly relevant to them, the special letter to their church. And yet, how interesting that each of those churches was also given sensitive information about 6 other churches.
Would those at Ephesus with their lack of genuine love have found to their surprise that Pergamos was commended? Would it have been with some shock that other churches read of the true state of Sardis so contrary to the reputation they had?
Would some in Thyatira have been moved with compassion on reading the contents of the letter to Smyrna, and would those of Philadelphia read their own letter with gratitude only to have their thoughts quickly turn to their brethren of Laodicea in such desperate need of spiritual sustenance and eyesalve?
In Smyrna we have an church which was rich in its poverty, and in Laodicea we have an church poverty stricken despite its wealth.
Thyatira, though tolerating Jezebel, knew something of ‘love, service and faith’. A little Ephesian intolerance for Jezebel and some Thyatiran love in Ephesus would have greatly enhanced both churches.
Why did the Lord deem it appropriate that all churches receive each others letters? Would this not constitute a gross breach of inter church decorum? Was it not more appropriate that some of these things should be dealt with privately?
As much as they were seven readily identifiable, separate churches they all belonged to the church of God.
Surely, there was an obligation to help one another!
Pergamos was geographically the closest church to Ephesus. One wonders however, whether there was any gatherings being organised between these two churches! Ephesus was commended for its handling of the Nicolaitan problem whilst Pergamos was censured for tolerating these people in their midst! Was there not an opportunity for those of Ephesus to provide support to their brethren of Pergamos in this matter? Was there not an opportunity for those Pergamos to humble themselves and seek their brethren in Ephesus’ advice in dealing with this problem in their midst? And might it not have occurred to them that in doing so, they were providing the ecclesia of Ephesus the opportunity to respond in love – the love which the Lord had identified as being so lacking in Ephesus?
Yes, there were opportunities in the region of Asia Minor for love and inter church cooperation after these letters arrived in their various destinations. There was scope to help one another.
It seems that in allowing each church to receive all seven letters, the Lord was allowing each church to see they were not alone. He is the vine, they are the branches.
He is in the midst. By being connected to him in their centre, they were connected also to one another.
What would the Lord say about our church?