The Language of the Early Church

Brothers, sisters, and saints. Strikingly, the early Christians referred to one another as “brother” and “sister.” This is because they authentically saw themselves as part of a new family. Unfortunately, we live in a day when such language is foreign to many Christians. But it’s been part of my spiritual vocabulary for the last two decades.

      Throughout this book, therefore, I will be referring to Christians by the following names: “Brothers,” “sisters,” “brethren,” “believers,” and even “saints.” The word “saints” is an English translation of a Greek word which means “holy ones.” En The Greek word is hagios. It was a favorite term of Paul of Tarsus. He used it to refer to every Christian. (Just look at the opening lines of most of his letters.)

      As time went on, the word devolved into referring to a select portion of the Body of Christ. The first-century Christians, however, had no such concept. Every believer was a saint . . . a holy one, in God’s eyes. Regrettably, this understanding along with the vocabulary that goes with it has been overwhelmingly lost to the Christian faith.

For more, click Frank Viola on the Church


Don’t Believe Everything You Hear or Read

Note: Author Frank Viola doesn’t run this blog. You can contact Frank directly HERE.

Frank Viola Author

Several years ago, Michael Hyatt (former CEO of Thomas Nelson) responded to a rumor on his blog. In the post, Michael wrote,

“According to the most recent rumor—which I’ve now heard twice—we [Thomas Nelson] are planning a layoff for June 19th … We are scheduled to close the transaction on June 12th, so, supposedly, this will happen the week following. I want to assure you that this is indeed a baseless rumor. There is absolutely no truth to it … If you hear this rumor, I would be grateful if you would help me short-circuit it. You can tell ’em it’s not true, and you heard it directly from me.”

I recall when this rumor was circulating and was saddened (and surprised) at how many Christians believed it without going straight to Michael to see if it was true or false.

Another example that’s much more national.

Late last year, I came across a website alleging a sex scandal involving President Obama. The “story” first came out in 2008 just before the primary. It was shown to be baseless and quickly faded away. Then it resurfaced again in 2010. (The original story was removed by the source after staying online for 4 years.)

Another site purports alleged “proof” that Obama is a Muslim terrorist in disguise. Again, a baseless rumor.

And another alleges that Obama is gay, has sexually harassed males, and abuses drugs. Again, baseless.

Note: I don’t agree with many of Obama’s policies. But these accusations are scurrilous, vicious, outrageous, and just plain slimy. There’s no good evidence to support any of them. That’s why they’ve never gained traction. However, because they are written intelligently, they persuade the uniformed (a characteristic of effective libel).

Earlier this year, Rick Warren was personally attacked, judged, and lied about by professing Christians.

Click here to read the rest of the article on Viola’s official blog —