This Leadership Business

Perhaps I might share some overall impressions.

Some years ago now, a brother in the Lord made a plea for us to “…overcompensate by not using the word “rule” which will lead many to misunderstand the term and thus interpret it as controlling. Instead we should use definitions such as “lead,” “guide,” ‘care for,” “watch over,” etc. that will keep us focused on serving God’s people.”

Many of us can appreciate this need to “overcompensate,” as coming from so much abuse of authority in what’s been calling itself “church.”

My brother had gone on to say,

“We all know these forms of bondage are practiced in various degrees of severity among us and that these issues have been discussed for several years now. Jay, you say ‘With the revelation from The Father of Christ and His cross, we can set the captives free, the gates of Hell don’t stand a chance against us. The sons of hell, the Satanic gate keepers have been completely disarmed.’ Suppose I am in one of these “churches,” how are you going to set me free? Where will I go if I leave the “church” I am currently in? I believe we need to go beyond speaking in generalities and start pointing to specific solutions. This is not an exercise in head knowledge but a real time crisis among God’s people. Many suffer in silence as we speak but what solutions can we offer?”

I responded:

“Certainly I can hear your pain, and the pain of all those who suffer at the hands of ‘the children of the slave woman.’ I would like to suggest another possibility than ‘overcompensation,’ however. Your following paragraph reminded me of something, which, I think is very important in this connection:

He had written:

“My main plea to you that begs for a response is please give me specific day to day examples of what authority over the ministry and authority over the church (God’s family) means. Does authority over the ministry mean controlling how a church service is to be run? Is the minister to control every aspect of the church service (who speaks when, who plays what instrument, what is taught, what is studied)? If authority over the ministry means any of those things then the family members are directly affected. Does ministerial authority extend beyond the ‘service’ or meeting and continue on when the building doors close? If not then what does authority over the ministry mean? Does it mean deciding where to travel to preach the word and who to bring with us? If so, does not every man who is led by the Spirit have the opportunity to have the Holy Ghost speak to him on these matters and not just ‘apostles’?”

My response:

“Our model, much like that of Luther, remains too religious, too ministerial, too institutional, too programmatic. The result of all of this is that our language has been destroyed. It has become too loaded. There is too much jargon, too much lingo, all of it loaded, all of it tending toward exclusivity and isolation. God The Father is more than willing to speak the language of those he is trying to reach. We, on the other hand, are inclined to speak the language of the already reached.

God The Father had already spoken through the law and the prophets, but more recently, He has said, in effect, ‘in other words, ‘Jesus.’ I would add that, God The Father still wants to say what He has already said, but in other words, and he wants the other words to be us – how we are and what we say. And the reason that He needs to say, ‘in other words,’ is because the words already used, have not yet reached those that God is trying to reach.

God has already spoken to them, about the invisible things of Himself, through the things created. That’s already enough to leave them without excuse but in His mercy God is willing to say it all again in other words through us.

In the old creation, He has revealed to the created things how he does life. Now in a new creation He is doing life once more, and we already know how He does life, and that is the model, not all of the religious edifices and structures that we have set up.

We know what elders are from life, and that is the way we ought to understand them for new life as well. We know how God nurtures life in the old creation, and that is the way life should be nurtured in the new creation as well.

But until we begin to live this out in relationships that Jesus has done, relationships that Jesus has revealed to us and is sustaining in us, we have very little to say, if anything, to a world which has long since lost track of how to get along with itself. In other words, I have no business trying to call God’s people out of Babylon, until I am manifestly living somewhere else. The People of God need an alternative place to live. I call that place, ‘relationships that come from God.’ They can be found from house to house, in the Spirit. God wants to nurture people in households, not in institutions. Healthy parents do not try to make retards out of their children for the sake of parental ego gratification. This is so clear as it has been worked out in the things created, that we truly are ‘without excuse,’ Romans 1:20.

For 1700 years, the church has been more a display case for the male ego, than it has been the revelation of the life of God’s Son. In an old creation place, God wants to superimpose only one new creation place, not two or more. Once we let go of that geographical constraint, all hell breaks loose, and that is what we have, and we have it in the name of the Lord. May I say, ‘This should not be.’

He responded:

“So, yes, the sheep of God’s pasture want to be one but not with the goats. It is unfortunate that the word ‘unity’ sends such warning bells in my mind but I believe ‘unity’ is an integral part of the great deception ‘that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

I continued:

“As for unity, there are, at least two kinds, one is Spiritual, and the other carnal. Let’s not throw out the spiritual because of the threat of the carnal. There is only one, “where I live.” That is true for everyone. Let’s not offer two or more alternatives, in the same place, that is a violation, not a manifestation of God’s heart. If you can separate the goats from the tares, you are doing well, but unfortunately the tares are left to grow in the same field as the wheat, at least until the time of the harvest.

My next-door neighbor may be an abusive parent and husband or wife, but that does not give me the right to have him thrown out of town. It is enough if I can live in, and model a redemptive alternative in my own house, without dictating how he or she behaves in his or hers. I am now speaking of spiritual households. A household is one thing, a “church” is quite another. Lets not get the two confused, and lets not allow the fact that the body has many parts to be an excuse to dismantle the Body and call the parts the whole.

Finally, when I speak of elders, I am not speaking of old creation years of age, but rather New Creation years of age and service. I believe that it was Paul’s concern for Timothy that people not look down on him because he was young in old creation years. The fact was that Timothy was mature in New Creation years, and in The Lord, that is what counts for something.”

Love!

  • By Jay Ferris, originally posted July 2012
Posted in J.Ferris: Church | 3 Comments

Offenses

It may be that we become offendable at the point where our own will is in conflict with that of the Father. Certainly false doctrine would put us in that place.

Having said that, and admitting that I only know in part, I have a growing perception that the streams which we have come from have compartmentalized our understanding of the Church. This is to say, that rather than seeing the word pictures of the church as reflecting the many facets of its essential unity, the word pictures have been taken to reflect various parts instead–distinguishing them from one another. Now, I readily admit that your stream may have more light on the Scripture than I presently possess, but for now my perception is that we have divided Christ by this understanding.

For me, Paul’s rhetorical question, “Is Christ divided?” says it all.  No!  Therefore, I am having a difficult time receiving doctrines concerning; “The Bride of Christ” as a distinct group from “Body of Christ,” for instance.  There are others who have, and continue to do the same thing–creating various classes of Christians or believers like the “Manifest sons of God,” “Joel’s Army,” “The friends of the Bride Groom,” etc.

Some have it all broken down by “national” types in their various denominations and movements: Assyria represents this, and Egypt represents that, etc.  A problem I have with all of this is that it seems to legitimize division, but more than that, validates institutionalism. In fact, for all the complaints against institutionalism out there, there seems be an even greater vested interest in “compartmentalized doctrine,” making it very difficult to accept that institutionalism itself is anti-christ on its own demerit.

Now, I am very grateful for your comments, particularly at this point and time, because we’re coming down to all of this in connection with the end of things.

Today we have sorcerers with big ministries who are not unlike Simon the Sorcerer who gave the early church so much trouble.

My problem with these “big ministries” is they are institutional – the work of man’s hands. Furthermore, when they claim to be prophetic in origin and function, I have a particularly difficult time with that, because Christ came to destroy the work of man’s hands, not validate it.  John the Baptist was not “REPENTANCE INC.”

Whether or not they are practicing “sorcery” is, for me, a secondary issue.  The real problem is they are validating the incorporation and division of the Body of Christ, doing so in the Name of The Lord, and claiming to be acting on direct revelation.  Should their claims be true, then my salvation is in serious question.

If God’s people are going to be called out of Babylon, they must have a clearer understanding–not only what they’ve been called out from, but also what they’ve been called unto. As it is, the saints seem to be continually moving from one Babylon to another, from one blind guide to the next, and the only things that change are the male egos being gratified. And currently, even female egos are beginning to get in on the act.

I confess again, I may not know the Father’s timing, but I believe this has gone on long enough. My heart’s desire is for the city of God’s making, not the cities of man’s doing.

Perhaps I should make a further confession. Although you would never guess it from my academic grades, I’ve been accused of being an intellectual. There would have be more than two or three witnesses for me to take these accusation seriously. Jesus promised to build His Church on revelation, which comes down from the Father, not on our ability to figure things out.

There are things that I hold dear which I know have come to me as revelation from the Father. There are other things that I hold dear, which may have come to me because I figured them out. I believe this may be the curse of those who are intellectually rich. They often have a more difficult time than most in discerning the difference between what is theirs by revelation, and what is theirs by human wisdom. I believe this is a great difficulty for those who function in the “prophetic” realm.  Truth is, we may only prophesy in part, but we sure talk a lot, and when real prophecy gets mixed with a lot of talk, there is bound to be error in the mix. When the error is a product of those who are “intellectually powerful,” the mix can be especially compelling, and attract a large following.

The continuing debate between “Christian intellectuals” may turn out to be more the fruit of “angels of light,” than an honest wrestling with the angels of God. Whatever the intent, the fruit is tearing the Body of Christ apart.  Too often, the reason appears to be the same ego gratification that caused Lucifer to run off with a third of the angels.

In my view, any prophecy or movement which builds a wall around a “part” and calls it the “whole,” does not come down from heaven, but comes up out of the earth. Enough!

  • By Jay Ferris, originally posted July 2012
Posted in J.Ferris: Reposts with Notes | 3 Comments

The Lust of the Flesh versus The Passion of The Christ


The fellowship, even the oneness that the Lord is after in and for us in this present age is rooted in His Passion, “The Passion of The Christ.”  “We Love because He first loved us.”

There is a passion of the flesh, which Paul tells us is about Christ and the Church, Ephesians 5:31, 32.  Paul begins what we know as Ephesians 5 with this, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Verse 3)   Sad to say, there is great confusion in this connection leading to moral failure on the one hand, and to repression and denial on the other.  In either case, what is missing is the kind of gender-neutral spiritual intimacy among us that Jesus prayed and died for.

We need to be clear about this intimacy.   We need to know how to discern the difference, if the world is ever going to see the passion in us that was manifest in Jesus.  This is the Passion that Jesus demonstrated on the cross, and prayed that we might share, not only with Him and His Father, but also with each other, as directed in and by His Spirit at work in us.  This is a passion so great that the closest thing to it is what I call the sexual parable.  It is pictured in being created male and female in its image, again, Ephesians 5: 31, 32.  This passion is also pictured in Song of Songs.  It is also pictured in the relationship between David and Jonathan, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,”  2 Samuel 1:26.

In Christ this passion is not about the flesh, it is about the Spirit of Christ in us – The Spirit that puts us together and makes us one, not only with Him, but also with each other.  This is a passion so great that if we don’t get it right, there is bound to be moral failure among us just as there was at Corinth, where Paul was determined to address it early on.

The problem of moral failure is not solved by turning the passion of Christ into passionless doctrinal love.  It is solved by discerning the difference between the lust of the flesh and the passion of the Christ in and among us who believe.  We must let the lust of the flesh be contained within the marriage of the flesh, “the two shall become one flesh…” Ephesians 5:31, so that the Passion of The Christ can be expressed in our fellowship with one another without regard to gender, and that without moral failure.

Love!

  • By Jay Ferris, originally published July 2025
Posted in J.Ferris: Reposts with Notes | 1 Comment