Towards a Biblical Home Church Ecclesiology

[dizzle]

Towards a Biblical Home Church Ecclesiology

by DAN TROTTER

I am responding to Dee Dee Warren's gracious invitation to post an article for the members of Theologyweb (www.theologyweb.com) in which I intend to defend a proposition that I suspect many readers will find quite radical. The proposition is this: the ecclesiology (such as it is) expounded in Western theology, and practiced by 99.9 percent of Western Christians, is utterly unbiblical.

I suspect a red flag has been raised in your mind's eye. I suppose you might be thinking: yeah, right, Dan Trotter's correct, and the whole rest of Christendom for two thousand years has been wrong. I pray that you will have the patience to read this article, to see if you perchance may be convinced that I am not quite as crazy as I might sound!

The ecclesiology which I am about to propose is going around these days styled as "house church" theology. Let me issue a caveat. It is true that a biblical church meets in a house. It is also true that there are 52.5 trillion nut cases griped with the institutional church who also meet in houses. I know, because every one of them has emailed me, causing me a great deal of pain and consternation. So, what I am proposing here is not merely a “house church” ecclesiology, but rather, a BIBLICAL house church ecclesiology.

I will also limit the scope of this article to the theological, at the expense of the practical. However, I must say that no theology is created in a vacuum. And ecclesiology, of all the branches of theology, is by its nature the most practical. What I will say in this article is backed by years of experience practicing biblical home church, which I have been doing continually since 1992. The practical (and many times painful) experiences I've undergone have been invaluable in fleshing out my ecclesiology.


Sometimes I fantasize about asking a very loaded question to a (conservative) institutional churchman: "Sir, do you attend a biblical church?" I can imagine no other response but "Yes." Is there any theologically conservative Christian attending a theologically conservative church who would think he is attending an unbiblical church? Having obtained the expected answer, I would then ask my institutional church brother: "Why then, do you not practice the following, all of which are important components of the churches the New Testament Christians built?" I would then go on to list the following New Testament church practices that are nowhere to be found in the modern Western mercantile church. I offer them here as a working description and definition of the biblical church:

· meetings were held in believers’ homes
· no special religious buildings

· the Lord's Supper was eaten at least weekly as a complete meal, (the Agape Love Feast), and did not consist merely of soda crackers and a shot glass of wine, and in fact was the chief purpose for which the early Christians met

· the children were present with the adults in the meeting; there was no Sunday School or Children's Church

· there were no salaried, professional clergy

· there was no sermon

· there was no one man show: everyone contributed to the meeting, not just "The Pastor;” the meetings were interactive, participatory, and open.

· the brothers' money was not spent on church buildings, but rather was spent on two things only: the poor, and itinerant workers

· there was no worship leader

· Church eldership was male, plural, non-hierarchical, homegrown, servant leadership

· never was a decision made by elders meeting separately from the believers; rather, decisions were made for the local church by consensus of ALL (or almost all) the gathered believers

· there were no denominations

· all the members of each church were saved

· leaders were home-grown and locally trained; they were not
trained to be professionals by seminaries

· the church was separate from the state

· mutual edification, encouragement and fellowship were the goals of church meetings

· only believers were baptized (by immersion)

· church life consisted of intimate koinonea, not merely church meetings

· church reproduction and equipping was done through the ministry of itinerant church workers (apostles, prophets, evangelists)


It is unlikely that my institutional church brother would object to the above description of the biblical church. There have been countless scholarly theological and historical works that affirm what I have written above. I offer here a few for your reference:

· “The earliest Christians had no special buildings, but met in private houses, as mentioned in several places in the New Testament.”

· “Worship in the house-church had been of an intimate kind in which all present had taken an active part… [this] changed from being ‘a corporate action of the whole church’ into ‘a service said by the clergy to which the laity listened.”

· “In the earliest days...their worship was spontaneous. This seems to have been regarded as the ideal, for when Paul describes how a church meeting should proceed he depicts a Spirit-led participation by many, if not all... There was the fact that anyone had the freedom to participate in such worship. In the ideal situation, when everyone was inspired by the Holy Spirit, this was the perfect expression of Christian freedom."

· "The very essence of church organization and Christian life and worship...was simplicity... Their worship was free and spontaneous under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and had not yet become inflexible through the use of manuals of devotion."

· “In the early days the Lord’s Supper took place in the course of a communal meal. All brought what food they could and it was shared together.”

· “Jesus instituted this common meal at Passover time, at the last supper shared with His disciples before His death...the Lord's Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, and it looks forward to the time when He will come back again. Throughout the New Testament period the Lord's Supper was an actual meal shared in the homes of Christians. It was only much later that the Lord's Supper was moved to a special building and Christian prayers and praises that had developed from the synagogue services and other sources were added to create a grand ceremony.”

· “[Ch 11]...reveals that at Corinth the Holy Communion was not simply a token meal as with us, but an actual meal. Moreover it seems clear that it was a meal to which each of the participants brought food."

· "Of official Christian priests we must honestly admit that there is in the New Testament not the faintest whisper.”

· "Instead of the community of the Spirit that it had originally been, the Church came to be seen as a vast organization. Instead of relying on the Spirit's direct guidance it was controlled by an hierarchy of ordained men, following strict rules and regulations which covered every conceivable aspect of belief and behaviour, and when the Spirit featured in this scheme it was taken for granted that what the leaders decided was what the Spirit was saying. By the middle of the 2nd Century the change was complete. At the beginning the only qualification for membership of the Church had been a life changed by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, at the start there had been no concept of church 'membership' at all...But by the end of the 1st Century things were rather different… And in all this we can see how the life of the Spirit was gradually squeezed out of the Body of Christ, to be replaced as the church's driving force by the more predictable if less exciting movement of organized ecclesiastical machinery."

· “The New Testament knows nothing of a sacerdotal class in contrast to the laity.”


But typically, institutional churchmen are not taken aback when it comes to their attention that their own practices are woefully out of synch with biblical church practice. They merely assert that the early church brothers had their way of doing things, times have changed, we have our way of doing things in modern times, the Bible doesn't command that we do church a certain way, so who cares how we do church? Every man is free to do what is right in his own eyes.

To contradict this erroneous stance is my chief task in this paper. Each one of the elements of the biblical church listed above is worthy of a separate article. But those points are merely incidental to the fundamental question: is there a biblically normative ecclesiology that holds good for all times, for all seasons, for all churches, in all countries? If the answer to that question is no, and church practice is a matter of Christian freedom because the Bible doesn't speak to the issue, then it doesn't really matter whether my points listed above are truly representative of the biblical church or not. For then, with no Bible as my guide, I can just pragmatically choose what I think best, as long as I don't contradict some clear biblical injunction. But just think: what if I'm correct when I say that, on the contrary, there is a normative, Biblical church practice, and guess what: the Western commercial church ain't practicing it?

As you can see, the implications are quite staggering. I need to point out that this is not merely an academic matter. There are centuries of encrusted tradition and billions of dollars of vested interest which oppose a steely, straightforward look at what the Scriptures say on this matter. I have found that it is not very difficult to argue the Scriptural pattern of church. What is extremely difficult, however, is to convince people to give up what they have become used to. Therefore, many institutional people never even consider whether their ecclesiology might be misguided, because they are happily encased in a traditional cocoon from which they see no need to emerge.

However, there are a few brave souls who will follow the truth where it leads them, even to changing their church lifestyle. Actually, over the past twelve years I have discovered there are more than a few. They are all over the world, as a matter of fact; in India, Ecuador, Finland, Latvia, Russia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, England, China, Nigeria, Canada, and in all states of the Union here in America, to mention places from which house churchers have emailed me, and places I have been, and places from which house churchers come to attend an annual house church conference I help sponsor.

I know that members of www.theologyweb.com are bright, inquisitive, brave, and hungry for the truth. And so I must say, there is a chance, however slim, that you may be convinced by this article. So let me issue this caveat: if you do become convinced, your life could really get screwed-up and complicated!

I am going to proceed with two mutually supporting arguments. The first will be a reductio ab absurdum, in which I will assume the hermeneutic of the institutional churchman who believes the Scriptures have nothing normative to say about church government, structure, and practice. Reasoning from his premises, I will show that if his logic is fully implemented, the result might well be a monstrous church that he himself would not countenance. The second argument will be a scriptural one, in which I will examine the straightforward words of the apostle Paul, using Scriptures which are usually totally ignored by supporters of the church system.

First, the reductio ab absurdum. Let’s ask a hypothetical institutional clergyman if he would like to pastor a new church that we are a member of. We tell him the church is cutting-edge, innovative, designed to scarf up postmoderns by the dozens and get them saved. We tell him about the church. It’s called Moonbeam Manor, and it advertises itself as a “sinner-friendly” church, priding itself on being “A New Church for a New Age.” Although it is an American church, it has voluntarily registered itself with the government of the People’s Republic of China, to show it’s solidarity with the old idea of a Constantinian state church. It meets in a medieval-style cathedral, which is filled to the brim with sweet-smelling incense and foggy smoke. Every week there are Christian hula dancers (modestly dressed, of course), who contribute their folk-art to the corporate worship, because Moonbeam Manor loves to show its solidarity with minority groups. For the same reason, there is a special monthly snake-handling service which resonates well with the dispossessed folks of the rural South. Although the leadership is completely orthodox in matters of soteriology, anthropology, theology proper, and eschatology, the church nonetheless welcomes to its worship services Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, fascists, communists, many of whom flock to Moonbeam Manor’s church services. This wacky gaggle doesn’t come every week, however, because Moonbeam Manor only meets once every six months. Holy Communion, incidentally, is held every two years, the elements consisting of Pop-Tarts and Mountain Dew. The sermons are given in Latin, to enhance the numinous quality of the service. Besides the sermons, there are teaching sessions, in which the congregation sits in a circle with the teacher in the middle, who, never speaking, shuts his eyes and whirls, throwing out his wisdom in a sort of osmotic process. Baptisms for the dead are routinely performed.

Our prospective institutional clergyman (of course) declines to participate. But why? What is it about Moonbeam Manor that is unscriptural?

Do you realize that there is not one characteristic of Moonbeam Manor that is directly prohibited by Scripture? At least, if you hold to the institutional clergyman’s belief that “if the Bible doesn’t condemn it, if the Bible is silent about it, well, then, we are free to do whatever is right in our own eyes.” Our system-church clergyman will find himself hoisted on his own petard should he start criticizing any of Moonbeam Manor’s practices. For, to deflect whatever criticism is brought, all Moonbeam Manor’s supporters have to do is say: “Show me in the Scripture where it’s wrong. Show me a positive prohibition of any of our practices.” And our poor institutional church clergyman will find himself twisting in the wind.

But the hermeneutic that allows Moonbeam Manor its freedom to be absurd is the same hermeneutic that allows the Western mercantile church to be what it is. Defenders of the church system take the stand that “nothing but positive commands will bind us in our church practice.” And since there is nothing scripturally that prohibits church buildings, one-man shows, sermons, singular hierarchical leadership, worship leaders, mute sheep, shot-glass-and-soda-crackers Communions, Sunday School and Children’s church, professional seminary-trained clergy, and all the rest, the defenders of the church system feel free to do all that. It never once crosses their mind that their brick-and-mortar Christian warehouses would be just as absurd to any of the apostles as Moonbeam Manor is to us.

There is a (largely unexamined) contradiction is the system churchman’s thinking. There are some things that are considered absolutely critical and normative as far as church practice. Yet those things are nowhere commanded in the Scripture, nor is their opposite prohibited. For example, how many institutional church folks (rightly) insist on the separation of church and state? Now quickly, think: where does the Bible tell us our churches must be disentangled from the state? Or where do the Scriptures tell us that a state church is prohibited? So, given the institutional churchman’s operational premises, that only positive commands shall bind us, if the Scripture is silent, we are free to do whatever we want - given that belief, how can he squawk over a state-registered church? Really, the only way system churchman can do it is by being inconsistent: some things not prohibited by Scripture, but nowhere found in Scripture are OK (sermons, one-man pastors, etc.), but some things nowhere found in Scripture are not OK (state churches).

This is not going to do. If ecclesiology is going to be based on something other than sheer pragmatism, we are going to continue to perpetuate a church system that continues to alienate huge masses of Christians (and non-believers), if George Barna’s polls are to be believed.

Next, let me turn to the second of my two-pronged argument. Not only is the standard system-church hermeneutic lacking in consistency, it actually contradicts the words of the apostle Paul. I am now going to present a Scriptural argument for a non-institutional home church. This alternative, while a minority view, has been expressed by other respectable Christian writers. I list the views of four such eminent authors below:

· J. L. Dagg, the first Southern Baptist theologian who ever really wrote anything, a founding member of First Baptist Church of Atlanta and professor of theology at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, wrote: “[the apostles] have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life… respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest"

· Watchman Nee, spiritual father of the modern home church movement in China (which, incidentally, is the fastest growing church ever recorded in the pages of church history), wrote: "Acts is the ‘genesis’ of the church’s history, and the Church in the time of Paul is the ‘genesis’ of the Spirit’s work . . . we must return to ‘the beginning.’ Only what God has set forth as our example in the beginning is the eternal Will of God. It is the Divine standard and our pattern for all time . . . God has revealed His Will, not only by giving orders, but by having certain things done in His church, so that in the ages to come others might simply look at the pattern and know His will."

· Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and of the first Baptist church in the Americas (1600s), is another example of a Christian who believed that churches should strive to be as close as possible to New Testament forms and ordinances. This belief led Williams to resign the professional pastorate to found Rhode Island on the NT pattern of a separation between church and state.

· Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, "The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of ‘churching’ a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs."

Now, let’s see if we can establish a biblical case for a “New Testament pattern shall bind us” ecclesiology. This will involve a two-step process. First step: we establish that the apostle’s commands are equivalent to Jesus’ commands, because Jesus said so. Second step: we examine what the apostles said about how they expected church to be conducted. The result will be a method of procedure in church affairs that takes Jesus’ intent and will very seriously, and extricates Jesus’ church from the wishes, desires, and traditions of man.

Step One: The apostles’ commands are equivalent to Jesus’ commands.

This is easy to show. Jesus said in John 13:20 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives WHOMSOEVER I SEND [i.e., the apostles] receives Me and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” Jesus also showed what he wanted our attitude to the apostles to be in John 15:20: “if they [people in the world] kept my word, they will keep yours [the apostles’] also.”

Step Two. The apostles expected conformity to the church pattern they established.

· I Cor 4:17 “For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach EVERYWHERE in EVERY CHURCH.” One may notice here that Paul was concerned with enforcing his “ways” in every church. “Ways” indicates practice, as well as doctrine. This indicates that Paul was every bit as concerned with orthopraxy as he was with orthodoxy. Note also that there was a common pattern of orthopraxy “everywhere in EVERY church.”

· I Cor 10:31 - 11:2 “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (v32) Give no offense either to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God; (v33) just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. (11:1) Be IMITATORS of me, just as I also am of Christ. (11:2) Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and HOLD FIRMLY TO THE TRADITIONS, JUST AS I DELIVERED THEM TO YOU.”

One may notice several things about this passage. First, the occasion is Paul’s exhortation for the Corinthians not to cause offense by eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul gives his views on that in I Corinthians Chapter 10, before he switches his focus to church matters in Chapter 11 (praying and prophesying in church, the sisters’ head coverings, the Lord’s Supper). In I Cor 11:1, Paul asks the Corinthians to be “imitators” of Paul, probably referring to Paul’s efforts to be pleasing to all men by not giving offense to Jews or Greeks, discussed in Chapter 10. The transition occurs in I Cor 11:2, where Paul (most probably) introduces his discussion on church affairs in Chapter 11 with the same thought: “hold firmly to the traditions,” which is another way of saying “be imitators” of the apostle.

Secondly, note the word “traditions” (Greek: parodisis). We are quite accustomed to using that word pejoratively, as Jesus did when he rebuked the Pharisees for upholding the traditions of men (Mat 15:3,6). But here, the word is used in quite a positive fashion: Paul wants us to “hold firmly to” the traditions that he had previously delivered to the Corinthians. These traditions were clearly church matters that Paul had previously “delivered” to the Corinthians. (Vines gives as the definition of parodisis “apostolic teaching… of instructions concerning the gathering of believers.”) “Hold firmly” does not translate to “go out and do whatever you feel like, just so long that it doesn’t contradict a positive command of Scripture.” Rather, “JUST AS I delivered them to you” means just that: don’t deviate, don’t claim Christian freedom, do church just like I taught you to do church. Did Paul praise the Corinthians’ creativity, or their conformity to his apostolic pattern? (And please remember: the apostolic pattern is completely foreign to the modern western concept of the ekklesia. We have “held firmly” to the traditions of men, not the traditions of the apostle Paul.)

· I Cor 11:16 “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Paul was dealing with a contentious dispute (women’s head coverings, and what that issue was about is of no concern to us here), and to deal with that dispute, he appealed to two authorities: (1) apostolic practice, and (2) all the other churches of God, who were practicing things the same way the apostle wanted them to. First, he says “WE have no other practice,” the “we” referring to Paul and his fellow apostles. Secondly, he says “nor have the churches of God,” thus appealing to a common ecclesiastical practice that buttressed his stand in the matter. The churches here were clearly not doing their own thing.

· I Cor 14:33b-34, 36 “…as in ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS, (v34) Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak… (v36) Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or has it come to you only?” The first thing we need to do is for right now to be completely indifferent to what Paul meant with the phrase “Let the women keep silent,” because whatever he meant is completely irrelevant to the reason I want to examine these verses.

First, we notice the phrase “…as in ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS…” Does this sound like all the churches of the early Christian world were exercising their ecclesiastical freedom on the issue at hand, or did the “ALL” do it the way Paul wanted for them to do it? Did Paul suggest that the Corinthians “let the Holy Spirit” lead them on this issue? Did Paul suggest that they were “free in the Lord?”

Second, we notice Paul criticizing the Corinthians in I Cor 14:36: “Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or has it come to you only?” These rhetorical questions, of course, were meant to be answered with a resounding “No!” Paul didn’t like the fact that the Corinthians were deviating from what “all the churches of the saints were doing.” There was, in fact, an apostolic pattern from which the Corinthians were deviating.

· Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set IN ORDER what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you.” It would be impossible for Titus to set churches “in order,” unless there were an “order” (a pattern) to which Titus could conform the churches. One may ask the familiar question: why didn’t Paul just instruct Titus to teach the Cretans to “let the Holy Spirit lead” the Cretans in their freedom?

Before I conclude, several caveats are in order. First, when I suggest that there is a normative New Testament pattern for doing church, I do not at all intend to say that we should mindlessly copy archaic things. An abuse of “pattern” ecclesiology would have us wearing robes and sandals, writing on parchment, reading by oil lamps, and refusing to use cars, telephones, and the internet. We should emulate things theological and ecclesiological, not things technological and cultural. We should note that the early church shared technological and cultural things with their pagan neighbors; the church was not distinctive in that way. The things we should emulate are those things that the pagan neighbors of the early Christians did not do: meet in homes, participate in clergyless religions, etc.

The second caveat is this. When we say we should emulate the pattern of the New Testament church, we should note that when an incident occurs once in the life of the biblical church, that by definition is not a pattern. A pattern takes several occurrences. Thus, only one church on one occasion shared all their goods in common, and therefore it would be erroneous to suggest that should be the norm for the church today.

And finally, I should note as a last caveat that following the New Testament pattern for church does not mean a robotic, mindless denial of freedom. We are not free to violate the few simple elements of the New Testament pattern, but there are thousands of other things about which we are free to differ from one another. Vive la difference. It is these thousands of differences that make each biblical home church so different and interesting in flavor. These differences usually result from different cultures, personalities, ages, ministry gifts, etc. present in the church. But as different as all these biblical home churches are, they still have the same essential ecclesiastical structure, just as snowflakes are all different, and yet they are all made out of water. It is often said that following the New Testament pattern for church leads to rigid legalism that destroys one’s freedom in Christ. Consider this analogy: following the biblical pattern for marriage won’t destroy one’s freedom, so why should following the biblical pattern for church destroy one’s freedom? Obeying Christ is not legalism; it never has been, and it never will be.

Let me close by reassuring all those who perhaps feel that my ecclesiology is extremist, and therefore suspect. I understand those feelings completely. I am completely suspicious of all theologies that don’t show up till the nineteenth or twentieth century. But let me point out that my ecclesiology was UNIVERSALLY believed by the early church for the first one hundred and fifty years. In fact, all the elements of the biblical church listed in this paper did not die out until the church and the Roman Empire merged under Constantine, which, of course, was an utter disaster for the church and for Western history. And even then, the biblical church did not die out completely, because there have existed through the centuries small confessing bands of believers who have understood what the church lost after the Constantinian peace.

So, may I invite you to explore the normal Christian church life?

AFTERWORD: LINKS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

There are a quadrillion websites which one may classify as “house church.” It is impossible to verify their quality, or even their orthodoxy. To save you time, may I suggest my three favorite sites? The first is www.ntrf.org maintained by Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Restoration Foundation in Atlanta, Georgia. This website emphasizes biblical doctrine, but also has articles emphasizing practical issues. The second is the website maintained by Beresford Job’s church in London (Chigwell Christian Fellowship), located at www.house-church.org. Beresford’s site, like Steve’s, emphasizes doctrine, with a touch of practical issues as well. Beresford’s chief focus is on Jewish history and the early Church fathers, as he explains how Jewish and patristic traditions have trumped the Scripture in affairs ecclesiastical, and how we are still unfortunately living with the results. The third is my own website, The New Reformation Review, at www.geocities.com/dantrotter. NRR is ironic, humorous, and polemical. At least the early issues were humorous. The latest issues aren’t very funny, because they focus on problems within the movement. You may want to skip these later issues if you tend to get easily depressed.

300

Personal note from Dee Dee to Dan – Dan has been my kindred theological spirit in all matters eschatological, and I carry great sisterly fondness for him. I am very glad he has taken some time to participate here.

300

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[dizzle]

Dan has been a very good friend of mine in which we have dialoged extensively on eschatology. I have always been aware of this particular point of view that he holds, though pretty ignorant as to why. I know that when I hear of such things very extreme images come to mind, so I wanted to ask Dan to take some time to explain his view. He is aware that it is quite possibly that all of the comments will be strongly in disfavor, but let’s keep it respectful. I am looking forward to the conversation (for those of you wondering since this type of teaching – or at least some similar terminology - is becoming more predominant in some theonomic or Reconstructionist circles, Dan is neither).

[Solly]

Hmmm, well what do you know, God does it again; just as I have gone out and bought a book on house church/cell church, to see whether we (the church I am minister to) needs to change direction, this pops up. Thanks Dan, there is some good stuff to mull over here.
Our association of Particular Baptist churches - somewhat spiritual descendants of Roger Williams' efforts, while not having the distinctive denominational structure of larger groups - no head office, no officers, etc, has yet fallen into the clerical mode of things where they run the show and the laity just sit around soaking up sermons. And we are dwindling. I have really thought that the only way forward over the next decades is to go "house church", but have wanted to find a nonCharismatic model. Thanks again Dan, and DD for letting this be posted.

However, this from the Chigwell site just seems so-o-o-o postmodern, so-o-o "All one in Jesus" to me:

Firstly, we don't want to even come close to appearing that we are promoting the erroneous idea that fellowship between believers' hinges in any way at all on agreement concerning secondary matters of belief. We have laid out our position on that which seems to us to be the irreducible minimum in order to be truly said to be Christian, but feel very strongly that the basis of fellowship between believers is simply that they are seeking to follow Jesus. Secondary issues, including matters such as church practice, don 't enter the picture when it comes to our unity in the faith as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Secondly, we aren't posting a comprehensive doctrinal statement as a church because we don't actually have one. Our understanding is rather that it is for each individual to struggle through the scriptures and reach his or her own freely arrived at and freely held convictions. Believers should know for themselves what they believe, and why, and it is not for churches to dictate set doctrinal positions or policies. This is not to say that we would tolerate anything so serious as to fall into the category of actual heresy, but simply that we recognize there to be many areas of honestly held doctrinal differences between sincere and faithful believers.

Especially the latter. Where is the Biblical notion of the church as the pillar and ground of the truth, of the guardian of the truth, of passing on what has been taught, etc. This seems too loose, and to me means that they cannot actually deal with the latter part: This is not to say that we would tolerate anything so serious as to fall into the category of actual heresy, but simply that we recognize there to be many areas of honestly held doctrinal differences between sincere and faithful believers.

While I obviously haven't had any involvment in a house church, when I was in the charismatics they had house groups, which were meant to be little churches of believers meeeting together weekly. My expericne from that - with the caveat that it was not a house church - is that it promotes bite sized activities, with all members contributing, so that the level of instruction was very low key. I preach for nearly an hour, twice on sundays, once in the week, and I need that time, and the people want that time. 15 minute pep talks are anathema to them, as are, "Well Jody what do you think Samson was feeling at this point" type studies which house groups tend to foster. If the church is not taught, it is nothing, and can be as touchy feely, children friendly, guitar strumming, lay your hand on me brother as it wants, but to my mind it is not church in its fullest sense. the Chigwell statement, which I obviously don't lay at your door, only increases my worries in that direction.

And being devil's advocate here for a moment, even though I am interested in the subject. The Anabaptists used the remarks in the early part of Acts to argue for commonality of goods for Christians, for all time; there seems to be a certain amount of this here also. What buildings could they meet in except homes, once ejected from the synagogues. And then they were a prescribed religion, so they couldn't get buildings for their own use. But later why not? And wouldn't the postMillennial position argue the fact, that if the world is being Christianised - in whatever way they understand that term - then why should the church still be hiding in homes that these days struggle to hold more than 25 people - at least in the UK - as opposed to the villas of 1st Century mediterranean culture.

Still, there is much to think over, since i have an antipathy to mega churches for a start, which drain communities of local fellowships, and can't possibly promote close fellowship. 200 is surely big enough.


/ot I see Jon Zens turns up on most of the sites; I know the name from somewhere, but can't remember. Is it NCT?

[dizzle]

I fixed the links, thanks.

[themuzicman]

Let's look at the first list to see if what he says is true:

meetings were held in believers’ homes


The movement didn't start with a $5M in the bank. While this is generally true, it was out of necessity.

· no special religious buildings
True, although Acts records Peter, James, and John going to the temple, too. Again, lack of budget.

· the Lord's Supper was eaten at least weekly as a complete meal, (the Agape Love Feast), and did not consist merely of soda crackers and a shot glass of wine, and in fact was the chief purpose for which the early Christians met

The Corinthians were chided for making the Lord's supper a meal (in addition to other things), so this isn't exactly a good thing.

· the children were present with the adults in the meeting; there was no Sunday School or Children's Church

Would be hard to do in a home setting.

· there were no salaried, professional clergy

However, Paul makes it clear that he WAS entitled to be paid for his preaching and teaching, "Do not muzzle the ox while treading out the grain." Certainly this is NOT prohibited.

· there was no sermon

You're kidding, right? Paul preached a sermon so long into the night that someone fell out of a window and died!

· there was no one man show: everyone contributed to the meeting, not just "The Pastor;” the meetings were interactive, participatory, and open.

To some extent. Again, Paul preached all night, once. Pretty much a one man show.

· the brothers' money was not spent on church buildings, but rather was spent on two things only: the poor, and itinerant workers

As a practical note, they couldn't afford to buy a building. Nowadays, the building makes the operation of the church more efficient and effective (at least it should.)

· there was no worship leader

I see no basis for or against this position. It is argument from a lack of evidence.

· Church eldership was male, plural, non-hierarchical, homegrown, servant leadership

He does have a point, here, since Paul does lay out some standards for church leadership while writing to Timothy.

· never was a decision made by elders meeting separately from the believers; rather, decisions were made for the local church by consensus of ALL (or almost all) the gathered believers


I don't see that in the council of Jerusalem. The elders were gathered.

· there were no denominations

True, although we really only have a few years of church history recorded in Acts, and most of that is Paul's travels.

· all the members of each church were saved

Again, argument from a lack of evidence.

· leaders were home-grown and locally trained; they were not trained to be professionals by seminaries

Again, a function of their being newborn church.

· the church was separate from the state

Not a bad idea, but, the early church was actually opposed by the local government. There is no basis for argument for or against, here.

· mutual edification, encouragement and fellowship were the goals of church meetings

And?

· only believers were baptized (by immersion)

Vague. It is recorded that some were and some weren't.

· church life consisted of intimate koinonea, not merely church meetings

A good goal for any church.

· church reproduction and equipping was done through the ministry of itinerant church workers (apostles, prophets, evangelists)


And it isn't now?


The biggest problem with almost the entire line of reasoning is using narrative as doctrine without further support. The churches in Western Civilization aren't the newborn churches of the first century. We and they face different problems, different opportunities, and different cultures. Much of what is claimed to be a special feature of the early church was just what they had to do out of necessity.

Now, am I claiming that there is nothing to be learned from the early church? No. However, to claim that any form of church is unbiblical because it doesn't look like the early church is simply unsupportable.

Paul said that he became all things to all people so that by all means he might save some. I think the church can apply that to itself to reach the world around it.

But just think: what if I'm correct when I say that, on the contrary, there is a normative, Biblical church practice, and guess what: the Western commercial church ain't practicing it?


You are not correct. QED.

First, the reductio ab absurdum. Let’s ask a hypothetical institutional clergyman if he would like to pastor a new church that we are a member of. We tell him the church is cutting-edge, innovative, designed to scarf up postmoderns by the dozens and get them saved. We tell him about the church. It’s called Moonbeam Manor, and it advertises itself as a “sinner-friendly” church, priding itself on being “A New Church for a New Age.” Although it is an American church, it has voluntarily registered itself with the government of the People’s Republic of China, to show it’s solidarity with the old idea of a Constantinian state church. It meets in a medieval-style cathedral, which is filled to the brim with sweet-smelling incense and foggy smoke. Every week there are Christian hula dancers (modestly dressed, of course), who contribute their folk-art to the corporate worship, because Moonbeam Manor loves to show its solidarity with minority groups. For the same reason, there is a special monthly snake-handling service which resonates well with the dispossessed folks of the rural South. Although the leadership is completely orthodox in matters of soteriology, anthropology, theology proper, and eschatology, the church nonetheless welcomes to its worship services Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, fascists, communists, many of whom flock to Moonbeam Manor’s church services. This wacky gaggle doesn’t come every week, however, because Moonbeam Manor only meets once every six months. Holy Communion, incidentally, is held every two years, the elements consisting of Pop-Tarts and Mountain Dew. The sermons are given in Latin, to enhance the numinous quality of the service. Besides the sermons, there are teaching sessions, in which the congregation sits in a circle with the teacher in the middle, who, never speaking, shuts his eyes and whirls, throwing out his wisdom in a sort of osmotic process. Baptisms for the dead are routinely performed.

Our prospective institutional clergyman (of course) declines to participate. But why? What is it about Moonbeam Manor that is unscriptural?

"All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable." - Paul

The clergyman declines because the church model you have laid out would be ineffective in the mission of the church in the present culture. It has nothing to do with prohibitions and permissions.

If it were possible that your model would be effective, then, for the most part, it would be permissible. (I disagree on a couple of points being biblical, but that's a side issue.)

Step One: The apostles’ commands are equivalent to Jesus’ commands.

Weak at best. "Kept" and "keep" are in the sense of preserving or observing, not obedience or authority.

The apostles expected conformity to the church pattern they established.

Argument from specific to general. Again, doesn't cut it.


Now, am I saying that we must reject the Acts church model? Not at all. However, to insist that the church everywhere is in the same circumstance as the church in the 1st century is simply naive.

I wish Dan all the best in using his model, but to say that the remainder of the church is unbiblical on this basis is simply arrogant.

Michael

[John Reece]

I read all of Watchman Nee's books about 50 years ago, including The Normal Christian Church Life. I also attended home church meetings in which a Chinese disciple of Nee was a guest minister, as well as many other home church meetings at various times and in various places.

Looking back over the past 50+ years of involvement in many traditional churches in many denominations, as well as experience in home churches, it seems to me that the form a church takes is not determinative of the quality of fruit produced.

It has been my observation and experience that a true and pure anointing of the Holy Spirit upon ministers, who are wise and mature, has been determinative of the quality of fruit produced. I found such mostly in churches, of various denominations as well as non-denominational, in which the pastors were accountable to wise and mature peers and mentors beyond the local church.

[studyhound]

Wow Dan is quickly becoming one of my favorite guys to read, preterists and Home churcher. :pepper:

You're kidding, right? Paul preached a sermon so long into the night that someone fell out of a window and died!

Well I did a study on this word and the greek word is where we get our word for dialog, so it wasn't a semon as we know it, it was more of a time of interactive teaching that just happen to go in to the night and the quite guy in the back just happen to sit in the wrong plase and nodded of and out the window. :doh:

[themuzicman]

However, the greek word isn't the english word.

If he were dialoging, there would be a specification of some kind as to who he was dialoging with.

In fact, the word also means to talk and to present an argument, as well, which was Paul's style.

Furthermore, if you read the part about falling out the window, it says that he was falling deeper into sleep.

Michael

[studyhound]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240161#post240161)
themuzicman:

However, the greek word isn't the english word.

If he were dialoging, there would be a specification of some kind as to who he was dialoging with.

In fact, the word also means to talk and to present an argument, as well, which was Paul's style.

Furthermore, if you read the part about falling out the window, it says that he was falling deeper into sleep.

Michael


The greek word is the root of the english word and they do mean the same. He was dialoging with a group, do you think Luke needed to put a list of those who were in attenance?

Yes he was falling in to a deeper sleep, but that is neither here nor there, some body can fall asleep anywhere under any circumstances.

[themuzicman]

We get the word Dynamite from Dunimos, but Dunimos does NOT mean dynomite. It merely means power.

In the same way, the greek word has a different sphere of meaning from dialogue. It can mean converse, or it can mean to argue or talk about, without the necessity of response or verbal interaction.

The translators chose "talking to" (and not talking with) for a reason. That reason is found in the next phrase, where Paul extended his message until midnight. The message there is specifically one sided, a discourse, a sermon, a speech or narration. So, the context clarifies the meaning of the verb. It was decidedly NOT dialogue.

Michael

[Cherith]

Qualified orthodox, home-church, preterist dittos.

I haven't read the entire article yet, but I'm inclined to agree with the majority that I've read so far. (Being a "Reformed Baptist," soteriologically speaking, I would tend to disagree however with the point that baptism is solely by immersion. See Letters on Baptism by Edmund Burke Fairfield for a fuller treatment on the subject. http://www.preterism.org/Commentary/Baptism/Fairfield/index.htm)

The other thing that I would tend to dismiss off the cuff is the statement that "all members of the [home-]church were saved." What of 1 Cor 14:23?

1 Cor 14:23: "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

I doubt anyone would argue that all true members of the body of Christ are saved.

Or what of Gal 2:4?

Gal 2:4: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:"

Are unbelievers (i.e. "visitors" ;o) to be excluded? How then should they be instructed? How could they before "going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand"? In other words, how could they know enough about the gospel to follow the bibical injunction to first count the costs?

And the final thing that I can think of (at this late hour) is what about the whole name thing - i.e. "church"? Should we retain even that unbiblical label? I'm not being sarcastic. Note:

The Greek word rendered “church” in the English Bible is ekklesia. It is a composite of two other words, a preposition ek (out) and a derivative of the verb kaleo (to call). Hence the word has reference to “the called out”. Although churches are popularly referred to as “assemblies”, and ekklesia is thrice translated “assembly” (in reference to a civic gathering) in the English Bible, the idea of assembly is not even implicit in ekklesia. More will be said about this later. Ekklesia can only apply to a particular marked out people. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be rightly applied to a building, an organization, an institution or an establishment.

The English word “church” is derived from a translation of the Greek kuriakon, (house of the lord) which always has reference to a pagan temple of idols. The word is nowhere in the Bible used in reference to God’s people, the Christian church. The rendering of ekklesia as “church”, therefore, is not an honest translation, but an erroneously contrived interpretation. Doubtlessly this was based on a flawed ecclesiology. ...

The failure of the word “church” to adequately represent what the ekklesia really is permits legitimacy to be claimed by everything from any frivolous play-church organization to the great whore. At the same time, the true called out of the Lord remain largely unrecognized or ignored.

...

This word confusion is further aggravated by the usage of the word “church”.

∙ It is used of a denomination in distinction from all other denominations of Christianity.

∙ It is used of a building where people meet for religious purposes.

∙ It is used of all Christians in a state or nation.

∙ It is used in the name of a particular association of professing Christians who regularly assemble in a certain locality.

∙ Then it is also used of all the elect and redeemed people of God.

The last two are the only biblical usages of the word ekklesia in respect to professing Christianity. Of these two, only one can fully represent the essential meaning of the word, the other being a secondary usage.

The above quote is from Conrad Murrell, in an issue of The Gatepost

I particularly loved the Moonbeam church stuff! Kudos!

--C

[Solly]

Cherith, it is my understanding that you cannot break down ekklesia in this way to derive its meaning. The word was already in use in the LXX to denote the congregation of Israel in the wilderness; it is a technical word with an appropriate contemporary usage that required further nuancing, such as "my ekklesia" as spoken by Christ. Therefore, it very much does denote an assembly, a gathering, since, by transference of meaning from called out, it came to mean what people are called out to do, which is to gather together. So, Tyndale in his translation, which the latinising, ecclesiastical AV translators overthrew at James' instigation.

Reformed Baptist who does maintain that baptism - which means immersion/dip/drench, and again, was transliterated by ecclesiastical establishment translators in order to maintain infant sprinkling - means just that. See William Shirreff, lectures on Baptism (former Presbyterian), and the various tracts by John Gill.

[HerodionRomulus]

Just a few points:

Being "Biblical" or not is not so crucial. Were we to be strictly "Biblical" then we would still practice slavery.

Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for abuses in the meal, not the meal itself. Some were eating all the food and getting drunk and then those who arrived late were left hungry.
The communal mean IS a good idea and one which the American church practices vigorously, even without home churches.
How do you say "potluck" in Greek??????????????:huh:

These are different times and circumstances. Paul said he adjusted himself to his audience; being a Greek to Greeks etc ets so he could easily fit into the current mode.

Paul WAS seminary trained, not in the modern sense, but he learned from the Gamaliel in what would pass for the ancient version of seminary.

And, not everyone would fit into this home mode. Believers are a wildly diverse lot, some love the mega church others not, some despise formality, others see great beauty and worship in incense and chants etc etc
There should not be a one size fits all.

Thanks and I'll pass the soapbox on to someone else.:lol:

[themuzicman]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=247921#post247921)
HerodionRomulus:

Just a few points:

Being "Biblical" or not is not so crucial. Were we to be strictly "Biblical" then we would still practice slavery.

The bible doesn't promote slavery per se, but acknowledges its existance (and its form in the ANE), and regulates it. Slavery was quite different in those days than it was 150 years ago.

Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for abuses in the meal, not the meal itself. Some were eating all the food and getting drunk and then those who arrived late were left hungry.
The communal mean IS a good idea and one which the American church practices vigorously, even without home churches.
How do you say "potluck" in Greek??????????????:huh:

A Potluck isn't communion. Communion is specifically the bread and wine being taken in rememberance of Christ. Corinth was abusing this custom, and Paul said that they should eat their meals at home.

Not that potlucks are bad, but they shouldn't be considered communion.

These are different times and circumstances. Paul said he adjusted himself to his audience; being a Greek to Greeks etc ets so he could easily fit into the current mode.

Paul WAS seminary trained, not in the modern sense, but he learned from the Gamaliel in what would pass for the ancient version of seminary.

And, not everyone would fit into this home mode. Believers are a wildly diverse lot, some love the mega church others not, some despise formality, others see great beauty and worship in incense and chants etc etc
There should not be a one size fits all.

Thanks and I'll pass the soapbox on to someone else.:lol:

Thanks! :hi:

[Cherith]

Solly: It is my understanding that you cannot break down ekklesia in this way to derive its meaning. The word was already in use in the LXX to denote the congregation of Israel in the wilderness; it is a technical word with an appropriate contemporary usage that required further nuancing, such as "my ekklesia" as spoken by Christ. Therefore, it very much does denote an assembly, a gathering, since, by transference of meaning from called out, it came to mean what people are called out to do, which is to gather together. So, Tyndale in his translation, which the latinising, ecclesiastical AV translators overthrew at James' instigation.

Hey Sol. Let me preface my comments by stating up front that I have never looked into this issue, but now that it has come up I am interested. So I'm hoping that you can give me some insight as we go along...

The writer that I mentioned has been a blessing to me on more than one occasion, but I believe that he holds a less than orthodox view on the nature of the resurrection, so I'm not willing to swallow everything he puts forth hook, line and sinker. His comments about the term church being used for pagan temples grabbed me the first time I read it and stuck in my memory banks, which is why I brought it up.

Now, on to your comments. First, you say: "It is my understanding that you cannot break down ekklesia in this way to derive its meaning."

In what way do you mean, etymologically? ek and kaleo?

I was reading John Reisinger today on the subject (http://www.soundofgrace.com/v6n6/ekklesiajgr.htm) and he indicated that this was the standard way of deriving the meaning of ekklesia. What other way would you propose? :huh:

Secondly, you say: "The word was already in use in the LXX to denote the congregation of Israel in the wilderness..."

Yes, but in my mind this still doesn't detract from the original statement for this reason: OT Israel was "the called out" in the typological sense - i.e. they were "called out" to be separate from the nations and holy. Of course, we know that they lacked the necessary ability not being individually (or collectively) indwelt by The Spirit. This is not the case with the NT "church." Therefore, our being "the called out" must, of necessity, carry another or a deeper meaning, does it not?

Personally, I believe that my semi-pelagian friends have an ax to grind by maintaining the status quo usage of "church" over "the called out ones". ("But beloved, persuaded better things of you" :rubia:)

I agree, as I indicated above, that God may have added certain nuances to the word with the advent of the New Covenant and the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, but this would not negate Christ's right to call His people "My [i]called out ones." In fact, I believe that given the context it would enhance that right as well as add that nuance that we spoke about between OC citizens and NC citizens. Peter was a member of "the congregation" by right of birth - i.e. his Jewish heritage; but apart from faith in the promised Messiah he would remain outside of "THE congregation" - that of the redeemed.

As for your statement: "it came to mean what people are called out to do, which is to gather together." I'm not interested so much in what "it came to mean" so much as what it actually means - i.e. Biblically. God didn't call a people out of the world so much to DO something as much as He did for them to BE something - viz., holy. Neither was His main objective simply for a certain group to "get together." Being part of The Body necessarily implies being united together. As Paul said: "there are many members, yet one body. ...Now ye are The Body of Christ and members in particular." (1 Cor 12:19, 27) The very next verse (v.28) has him talking about the God-ordained gifts of ministry in "some" of the members of the "church" or "the called out ones."

Can we agree that the word "church" is derived from the Greek word kuriakon which was a building that meant "the house of the lord" (i.e. a pagan temple)?

Where is kuriakon even used in the NT?

And why transliterate a totally different Greek word instead of simply translating the original Greek word provided to us consistently through The Spirit?

Sure King James had a political axe to grind. I doubt anyone in their right mind would argue that point, but my point to Trotter was as long as we're trying to clean house should we continue in other old errors?

Looking forward to your input.

Grace and Peace,
--C

P.S. an "assembly" was also the choice word used of citizens at a local political gathering (e.g. Acts 19:39). While we are "citizens" (Phil 3:20) we don't come together primarily to decide matters of "church government." Synagogue might be a better word to describe our local "get togethers." At the very least, it's Biblical (James 2:2) and it keeping with our continuity as the people of God - i.e. Israel! :wink:

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249125#post249125)
Cherith:


[color=maroon]In what way do you mean, etymologically? ek and kaleo?

Just a thought, but you cannot break down butterfly in such a way. It is not a flying stick of butter.

[quote[Personally, I believe that my semi-pelagian friends .....[/quote]

:teeth:

I know you mean that with love. I am Molinist now by the way.

[Cherith]

Hellooooo DeeDee... :kiss:

Here's another "thought":

et·y·mol·o·gy n. pl., et·y·mol·o·gies. Abbr. etym., etymol.

1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible. 2. The branch of linguistics that deals with etymologies.
--American Heritage Dictionary

My question was why transliterate a totally different Greek word (that is not even used in Scripture) instead of simply translating the original Greek word provided to us consistently through The Spirit?

The etymology of ekklesia is ek meaning "out" and kaleo meaning "to call," therefore ekklesia literally means "to call out" or "the called out ones," and yet this is not what the word church means nor did the word that "church" is derived from imply such.
:popcorn:
~~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~~*~~~~~
I'm not familiar with Molina. I'll have to read up. Are you looking for some third middle ground like Hank hoping you'll be safe from scrutiny? :ponder:

Grace and Peace,
--C

BTW, I looked up butterfly in my English dictionary and it says that butterfly is an Old English word derived from either the fact that the excrement of this "fly" is the color of butter or that butterflies were thought to be witches who changed themselves into these little innocuous creatures in order to steal butter. So, actually, butter-fly can be (and was) broken down in this way, but they probably didn't have "sticks" of butter back then. My personal preference is the squeeze-kind...

Resource #1http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/B0581600.html - American Heritage Dictionary

Resource #2http://www.insects.org/ced4/etymology.html - Butterfly etymology

[dantrotter]

First Response

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments in response to my article. If I may, I would like to post a preliminary, generic response to the comments made so far.

First, off the subject, someone wanted to know about Jon Zens. Yes, he is big into New Covenant Theology, edits Searching Together Magazine, is a house church guy, and has spoken several times at the annual Southern House Church Conference which I help sponsor.

Second, someone read the Chigwell Christian Fellowship (London) website and got the impression that the church, or the leadership, was loose on doctrine, and didn't emphasize teaching enough. The moving force behind that website and church is a friend of mine, Beresford Job. Beresford is an excellent teacher who teaches on everything under the sun, not just ecclesiology. And, I have known him to confront an heretical preterist, going toe-to-toe with him till the wee hours of the morning, asking the the unorthodox preterist to resign because he was harming the sheep. This sort of comment about house churches not liking teaching is a common misperception, because, we, like the NT church, don't have sermons, but emphasize rather that "EACH has a teaching...", as Paul said in I Cor 12.

It is commonly asked why those who look to the NT church as their exemplar for modern church life, overlook the holding of goods in common in Acts. The reason is simple: the communal living in Acts was a one-time thing, one does not find such living arrangements in any other church in the New Testament. A one-time-event is not a pattern; it is not typical of an apostolic church. The reason for the communality in Acts 4, in my view, had to do with the fact that all the Pentecostal pilgrims from all over the Roman Empire didn't have jobs or a place to stay, and they had to be accommodated.

Someone raised what I call the "pragmatic" argument as to why we moderns shouldn't do church like the early Christians. It is said that the early Christians didn't have the money to build religious buildings like we moderns do. The answer is this: it is false to say that early Christians didn't have the resources. They came from the same culture that built religious buildings all over the place: synagogues, temples, even the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, the remains of which are still with us. Those buildings weren't cheap, but a little bit of money raised from each person over a long period of time adds up. All poor cultures throughout history have built religious buildings, no matter how poor they were. In fact, the only religion that never did was Christianity. I wonder why?

It is said that the Corinthians were chided for eating the Lord's Supper as a full meal. On the contrary, they were chided for getting drunk at the meal, and ignoring the poor at the meal, they were definitely not chided for eating the meal itself.

It was commented that children are "hard to do in a home setting." Perhaps, but children were present in the church in the New Testament, they figured out how to do it. Consider Eph 6:1, where children were directly addressed in a letter read to Ephesian saints: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord." Children were also present with Paul when Paul met with certain church leaders on the beach at Tyre (Acts 21:5). While this was not a church meeting, but rather an apostolic one, nonetheless it does indicate that the church did not practice the "juvenile segregation" of the modern church. And what did Jesus say about the children? "Suffer the little children to go off into Sunday School and Children's Church?" Sunday School and Children's Church are 19th and 20th century inventions, which means that for 1700 years children were with the parents in church, unless there is some other alternative that I haven't thought of. I have been doing home church for over eleven years, and we've always had children with us. I love 'em with us. Wouldn't have it any other way. (more later...)

[dizzle]

Hi Dan!!! I was successfully in luring you to post here. Now I will tie you down and not let you leave.

[dizzle]

Hey Cherith... you need to keep away from the red tones, that is a no-no 'cause that is for moderator beatings only.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249595#post249595)
Cherith:

My question was why transliterate a totally different Greek word (that is not even used in Scripture) instead of simply translating the original Greek word provided to us consistently through The Spirit?

I agree. One of my main gripes is the artificial English word baptize, which is essentially a transliteration of the Greek baptizo. But translating it accurately as "dip" or "immerse" would have upset the ecclesiastical authorities who practised sprat sprinking, which they called "paedobaptism".

The etymology of ekklesia is ek meaning "out" and kaleo meaning "to call," therefore ekklesia literally means "to call out" or "the called out ones," and yet this is not what the word church means nor did the word that "church" is derived from imply such.

But Don Carson gives this as an example in his book Exegetical Fallacies. Meaning is determined by usage, not etymology, and ekklesia means those "called together" rather than called out.

[fomebeesch]

My biggest objection to all of this is, "Well, why's it a big deal at all?" No offense, but just because it happened during biblical time, doesn't mean it's biblical. We really don't have much of an ecclesiology laid out in the Bible except for bits and pieces of what they just happened to do. No real commands that I see us breaking today. We don't wear coverings on our head and make sure to follow the other rules we deam as "cultural". Why can't the rest of these fall into this catigory?

[Solly]

Thanks for coming back Dan.

Soc, that's what I said; glad we agree.

Fome, who doesn't wear head coverings? Our churches do, and we don't buy the cultural argument, esp now that it is used with regard to homosexuality and female teaching ministry to mixed congregations.

[Cherith]

Fome: ...why's it a big deal at all?" No offense, but just because it happened during biblical time, doesn't mean it's biblical. We really don't have much of an ecclesiology laid out in the Bible except for bits and pieces of what they just happened to do. No real commands that I see us breaking today. ... Why can't the rest of these fall into this catigory?

Let me be Jewish for a moment and answer your question with a question: Are you happy with the state of the "church" today? Are "the called out ones" clearly visible, set apart, different from the rest of religiousity? Is the visible church fulfilling her God-ordained roles - to love one another, to preach the gospel to the lost, make disciples, equip the body, support widows and orphans, etc.? Or are we too caught up in giving altar-calls to "seekers" (both unbiblical notions), spending money on parents-day out programs and day-care so women can shuck their primary calling to their husbands and children, etc. Does one-man leadership & "sermons" foster real Body activity or passivity. Are fellow believers REALLY there for you? Are they your closest friends outside of "church"? Are they who you call when you have a problem and need guidance?

But more to the point than what very few things I have listed, have you ever congregated/assembled in the fashion that Dan is suggesting? It is a wonderful experience and truly engenders fellow-ship. People know where each other are spiritually. People become genuinely concerned about the lives and spiritual walk of their fellow Chrisitans. People cannot just sit on the sidelines and let someone else do their studying for them, etc.

There are some downsides. In our "community groups" we still had elders deciding (without consulting the group) what we were going to study (and often that was some Christian book and not the Bible - which was reserved for "The Lord's Day). I remember going through Chuck Swindoll's "Dropping Your Mask" and thinking how much an utter waste of time it was. Now I love Chuck Swindoll, don't get me wrong, but studying that book as a group was fruitless. Of course, this often happens in churchy Sunday schools too.

But, even on Sundays we had elders (most were seminary trained; one was a pediatric surgeon by profession, one was a theology professor at the local Christian college, etc) take turns on a particular passage, book or theme from the Bible. We were using an office bldg that the owners loaned out to us on Sundays, with a banner out front in case any "seekers" were driving by, and we arranged our computer chairs around the sofas in the lounge and drank coffee while we were instructed. People could raise their hands (as a matter of polite interruption) and interject a point, make a comment/observation, critique, etc.

Kind of like over here. Which makes me think of something else, Jome. Why do you think so many Xians have flocked to the internet to talk to other Xians or to look for spiritual resources? Is it because there is a void in the life and character of the modern "church"?

Ok, I'm done ranting. :rant:

On the flip side, I'd like to pose another question. The Lord instituted the tabernacle and then the temple under the Old Covenant. These He destroyed when the people fell into gross sin and rebelled against Him. During the Babylonian exile the people started congregating in synagogues to uphold the religion of their fathers. In no way was the synagogue a valid replacement for the institution that God had ordained. It had no God-ordained legitimacy. Then old Herod the usurper came along and built another temple to ingratiate himself among the people. This too was illegitimate and had no theological right to exist. Have you ever asked yourself where the Jews offered their sacrifices, as commanded by the law, prior to Herod's temple?

However, we see that God used Herod's temple - Joseph and Mary brought Jesus there and offered God a sacrifice. Jesus Himself went there and threw out the money-changers and called it His "Father's House," and He instructed other people that He healed to go there and "offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded" or in the case of the lepers to show themselves to the high priest (more genetic usurpers). As for the synagogue we see Jesus and the apostles as well as early believers also congregating in these "illegitimate" circumstances.

So, I guess the upshot of my post is that yes, God can use whatever means necessary or whatever is available, but does that make it His preferred/prescribed/ordained means?

I grew up in "the church," my father was a "pastor," I attended Christian schools, etc. but it wasn't until I became a truck driver addicted to talk radio that I was converted by God through radio. (Rush Limbaugh used to be hard to pick up on I-20 between Van Horn and San Antonio!) Was this God's preferred means? Do Christian radio broadcasts - totally separate from the local church - fall under God's prescribed means for transmitting the Gospel? Are radio preachers better equipped to fulfill "the Body" commands? Can electronic people reach out and give me a :hug: or call me to accountability? Can they be their brother's keeper? or bear their brother's burdens?

Just food for thought,
--C

[HerodionRomulus]

"Have you ever asked yourself where the Jews offered their sacrifices, as commanded by the law, prior to Herod's temple?"

The returning exiles built a modest Temple which served until Herod built his massive structure.

However, there was a functioning Temple at Elephantine, an island in the Nile river above the first cataract. This existed for several centuries and served the exiles in Egypt. Remember that Jeremiah and many others fled to Egypt.

Also, as to legitimacy, when Onias III (the Great) was murdered and replaced by Jason as High Priest, at the start of the Maccabee period, Onias IV established a Temple at Leontopolis in Egypt, in the sacred region around On(Gk. Heliopolis)
This Temple was in operation, and considered itself legitimate (and Jerusalem illegitimate) and remained until the Romans destroyed it.
This destruction was in 73ce 7 years after the start of the Jewish Revolt in 66ce.

[Cherith]

But did any of those temples have any legitimacy before God?

David wanted to build God a temple, but even the man "after God's Own Heart" was prevented from doing so because of his bloody hands. God allowed David's son Solomon to carry out David's desire, but even then God qualified the construction of this temple with this caveat: "And The Word of The LORD came to Solomon, saying, {12} Concerning this house which thou art in building, IF thou wilt walk in My Statutes, and execute My Judgments, and keep ALL My Commandments to walk in them; THEN will I perform My Word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: {13} and I Will Dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel. {14} SO Solomon built the house, and finished it." (1 Ki 6:11-14)

So Solomon's temple was built upon certain Divine conditions. The same cannot be said of Herod's temple.

In Ezra 1 it says that Cyrus, the King of Persia, said that God had commanded him to build Him a house at Jerusalem. Chapter 7 lists Ezra's genealogical qualifications (something also missing from the priests of Herod's era). This became known as Zerubbabel's temple.

These other temples that you mentioned were not legitimate in the sense that they had not been Divinely instituted. Remember, the temple was where:

1) the ark of the covenant with the mercy seat,
2) the sacred fire to consume the initial burt offering and sacrifices,
3) the Shekinah glory,
4) the Holy Spirit, and
5) the Urim & Thummim

were supposed to be. None of these were in Zerubbabel's temple. According to Josephus there was nothing in the holy of holies where the ark of the covenant had stood. A stone had been placed there for the use of the high priest, but no article of furniture upon which to sprinkle the atoning blood.

Beyond this you have no other prophecy/promise of a future temple except that of Ezekiel, and I'm sure no one in their right mind thinks that Herod's temple fulfilled this!

Herod's temple, along with countless others - ancient and modern, and even the synagogues themselves were illegitimate constructs. Did God use them? Certainly. But God uses all things together for the good of His people.

I'm sure there were some hungry Christians in the first century that were sustained by God through meat that had been offered to idols... (1 Cor 8:10) Does that then mean that God sanctions idol-worship or pagan temples just because He can use such things to accomplish His Purposes? No, of course not.

My point was how did God's people - especially those that were sensitive to the covenant commands - carry out The Lord's Will in a temple that had no legitimacy nor even the articles prescibed to perform the commanded functions? God had said that Aaron's sons would minister before Him (and He even killed a few that tried to do things their own way), yet by the first century we have high priests that have bought and bribed their way into the "position."

Gotta run. Duty calls.

Grace and Peace,
--C

[fomebeesch]

Yes, there are many problems with the church. Brovo for pointing so many out. Let's just get rid of it alltogether. Well, ok. Here's my point. I have been to several of those group settings. In fact my church has them every week and they're wonderful. I think that they're a great part of the Christian experience and valued by all who attend. That's not my point. My point is the so-called "Biblical" model is a false conclusion. It is only the way they did things because of the circumstances that they were in. It was the "right" way any more then our way is the wrong way. And you can't say it was working better then. Look at all the problems the early church had in Corinth and other places. That's most of the reason we have the Epistles, because the church was srewing it all up. It's going to happen. We're human and we're doing the best we can, so I have a problem when people come out of nowhere and just pick away at all the bad things the church is doing without truely offering solutions. There really is no solution. And I believe that the church, at least my church, is doing the best that it can. God bless us...everyone...

:lol:

[koinonia1011]

Well, quite a discussion. I used to be concerned about 'how' to meet, 'where' to meet, ad nauseum. . . . However, I have discovered that Christianity has NOTHING to do about meetings!! No duh. . . . Christianity is about Christ living His life in/through/as us and that involves relationships, hence my name 'koinonia' which is the Greek for a reciprocal relationship. Unfortunately our various Bible translations use meaningless words like fellowship, communion, sharing that lack clarity and the real substance of koinonia's depth of meaning. Soooo, where does that leave me on this issue? I could care less where, how, when or IF anyone meets at all. But, I do care if we develop reciprocal relationships within the Body of Christ. You can meet all you want, and never really have koinonia.

Isn't it about time we focused on Christ instead of all these 'issues'? Then perhaps we won't be proprogating a self-centered gospel and we will be developing meaningful relationships where the Holy Spirit can flow through His Body.

Let's not develop another doctrine over which believers can now be divided. Christ - and only Christ - is our focus.

[koinonia1011]

Why are believers intent on finding out how they 'did it' in the early church? Aren't we supposed to be led by the Holy Spirit, who leads us and guides us into all truth? Since when is the book of Acts and the letters a formula for 'how to meet'? Sounds like house church proponents are becoming another denomination to me. And isn't that what heppens when we are looking for the 'master key' instead of looking to the MASTER? And I will say it again, it is not about how to meet, where to meet, when to meet, etc. . . but about Christ.

We can all quote scripture, go to the Greek and make it say whatever we want to. You all know that. I have done it. It's focusing on dogma instead of Christ.

Let's point people to Christ; I don't care if you are at the beach having a picnic with your family. Let's just be real and love one another.

[Cherith]

I understand and even tend to agree to some extent. My whole thing isn't so much about "how they did it" in the first century, but WHY they did what they did and WHY today we do what we do. See, I believe that some of the problems we have in the "church" today are because we didn't leave Rome far enough behind in our protest-a-tion (i.e. the Reformation). And I'll be the first to admit that being a quasi descendant of the Anabaptists that there's probably an axe to grind in my spiritual heritage. :doh:

And yes, I think that some people go overboard wanting to "get back to" some first century model. My parents attended a local house-church gathering and they were eating together and celebrating the Lord's Supper when they passed "The Cup" around. They were so wrapped up in doing things according to the "Biblical" model that they were willing to share a common cup during Communion (as my kids would say, "YUCK!"), because "that's the way they did it on the night before Christ's Passion!"

(And BTW, I don't currently attend a church with either the house-church format or one that even has "community groups." I went back to the church I grew up in because they moved away from the way things were, called one of the elders to be a one-man show, chunked community groups and doctrine became less important.)

Koinonia1011 said: 'koinonia' which is the Greek for a reciprocal relationship. ...I could care less where, how, when or IF anyone meets at all. But, I do care if we develop reciprocal relationships within the Body of Christ. You can meet all you want, and never really have koinonia.

You're absolutely right! But "K," does the paid one-man-show engender those kind of relationships or do they lead to our current situation? I'm more challenged and encouraged to study by my relationship with my father and faceless internet posters than I get "at church."

And this is my whole gripe (this and the whole clergy/laity distinction that has grown up out of this), and I could easily take issue with some of the passages Dan used as supportive of his position. But over the last few years I've really begun to hate "church" and just want to stay home, read and write like A.W. Pink did for 17 years! (I think I could even make a good case for being a lone-ranger Christian given the model of OT saints! :wink:)

But as my friend Jon Zens said about the "clergy system", you end up giving "encouragement to people who are functioning in an office Christ has nowhere revealed in His Word. ...a job description found nowhere in the New Testament. ...perpetuating an unbiblical system that is to the detriment of those who attend." Either way we're following a system.

And our current one is just a revival of the OT priesthood, pure and simple, and a shucking of our koinonia responsiblities to each other. In that way, it imitates the synagogues of old where the Pharisees thrived and eventually became nothing more than a civic center with more of a secular atmosphere than one geared toward worshipping God and equipping and edifying one another.

That's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
--C

P.S. And I would have to disagree with Fome's comments. I don't think the epistles were written primarily to correct the church's "screwed up" pattern of worship, but rather to correct their doctrine that wasn't in line with God's principles or what He intended through His Model and sacrificial death.

[fomebeesch]

My impression is that all of you have attended rather poor churches and thus your reasoning for the argument. The purpose of "church" or "sunago" is to come together in worship to God. To be in a one accord. For crying out loud just the word "sunago" comes from synogogue! I really don't think that you can say that it's ok to be a lone ranger Christian. Good grief man look at all the scriptures about accountability. Look at the missionary journeys. Anyway, I think the Biblical model of one leader is quite clear and important. It's not a "one man show" at my church. Though we have a pastor and a worship leader and all of the other things that you have objected to, the focus is still on our interaction with God and our interaction with each other. I'm sorry that you've attended poor churches, but that does not mean you have the authority to come in here and say that the entire church system should be thrown out. That's just childish...

[Solly]

Fome, you are foaming somewhat. I certainly haven't made out I am in a poor church; however, i am a Baptist, captive to the word of God, and I agree with the phrase, Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est; Dan has presented some views, and it for us to consider, examinie, and respond. You reaction is along the same lines as you say his is. He say throw it all out, and you say, keep quiet in the back rows everything is alright.

Though I am looking into the HC movement, I may well come to disagree with it, but at least i will know why I disagree, and I will let them tell me their story, and with respect assume that they sincerely believe what they believe.

One thing that has not been solved in most mainline churches is clericalism, which rears its ugly head anywhere and everywhere. If the HC movement has an answer to that, they I will listen and consider.

Dan is not proposing a new idea to replace interaction one with another, or with God as the church, the Body of Christ, the called together ones [pace cherith], merely the arena in which that takes place, and what might better facilitate it.

[HerodionRomulus]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=253421#post253421)
Solly:

One thing that has not been solved in most mainline churches is clericalism, which rears its ugly head anywhere and everywhere. If the HC movement has an answer to that, they I will listen and consider.


Haven't the Quakers mostly solved this?

[HerodionRomulus]

Regarding 'Lone Ranger' Christians, where does this leave the many hermits of the early church(especially in Egypt) who separated themselves from all but God for long periods of time?

[fomebeesch]

Hmmm...Solly... I like that.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 05:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=253474#post253474)
HerodionRomulus:

Regarding 'Lone Ranger' Christians, where does this leave the many hermits of the early church(especially in Egypt) who separated themselves from all but God for long periods of time?

In their holes, with maggots eating their flesh, because they bought into the gnostic/neoPlatonic idea that the body, esp women's bodies were e-e-e-evull, nad had to be got away from. Christianity is a social religion, and 4th century anchoritism is as bad as 21st century individualism...my experiences, my beliefs, my relationship with God, my private space...

[HerodionRomulus]

Today @ 10:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254836#post254836)
Solly:



In their holes, with maggots eating their flesh, because they bought into the gnostic/neoPlatonic idea that the body, esp women's bodies were e-e-e-evull, nad had to be got away from. Christianity is a social religion, and 4th century anchoritism is as bad as 21st century individualism...my experiences, my beliefs, my relationship with God, my private space...

OIC. Thanks.
Well, I could never do that anyway. Such solitude would drive me right up the cave wall in no time.
I mean realllly no internet access--how barbaric. :shocked:

[Solly]

:lmbo:

[fomebeesch]

LOL

[Cherith]

For the unenlightened, Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est means the church having been reformed is to be reformed

(This has long been my father's screen-saver message!)

The lone-ranger Christians that I had in mind weren't just the A.W. Pinks of this world, but Biblical guys like Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, Job, the prophets, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, etc. Where was their support system? Do we need 10 men to make an assembly or just 2 or 3 (of any gender, preferrably 1 man to teach, and 2 women to listen! :shocked:)?

7,000 men scattered among a 10-12 tribe nation isn't exactly a large number - it's a remnant really :wink: - so I doubt there was much room for interaction and edification among these saints.

And even when Elijah meets Obadiah and is told to remember how Obadiah had hid and fed 100 of the Lord's prophets, yet Elijah still wants to die because he feels all alone...

And what about all of those missionaries we send to deepest-darkest ...fill-in-the-blank...; who are they supposed to assemble together with, be edified by, held accountable to, etc.?

And just for the record, would cyber-"church" fit into your guidelines for a "healthy, well-balanced church"? People aren't forsaking their assembling, there are interactive worship services, etc.

Devil's Advocate,
--C

[Solly]

10-25-2003 @ 08:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=256421#post256421)
Cherith:


The lone-ranger Christians that I had in mind weren't just the A.W. Pinks of this world, but Biblical guys like Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, Job, the prophets, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, etc. Where was their support system? Do we need 10 men to make an assembly or just 2 or 3 (of any gender, preferrably 1 man to teach, and 2 women to listen! :shocked:)?

7,000 men scattered among a 10-12 tribe nation isn't exactly a large number - it's a remnant really :wink: - so I doubt there was much room for interaction and edification among these saints.

And even when Elijah meets Obadiah and is told to remember how Obadiah had hid and fed 100 of the Lord's prophets, yet Elijah still wants to die because he feels all alone...

And what about all of those missionaries we send to deepest-darkest ...fill-in-the-blank...; who are they supposed to assemble together with, be edified by, held accountable to, etc.?

And just for the record, would cyber-"church" fit into your guidelines for a "healthy, well-balanced church"? People aren't forsaking their assembling, there are interactive worship services, etc.

Devil's Advocate,
--C[/color]

But the biblical accounts you have given are all extreme circumstances. And we don't know about the three men in Daniel - there was Daniel for a start, and other Jews. Would you consider Elijah's life the normal christian life? You might then ask who did Jesus meet with for edification?
And the missionaries didn't necessarily go ALONE, just in small numbers; families, co-workers. Most missionaries were/are accountable to their missionary boards. But still, the fact of evangelists and missionaries doesn't rule against the normal christian church life.

[ollie]

One does not attend church. One if Christian is a member of Christ's church and attends the assemblies of the church. That is if one is scriptural.

[Cherith]

Amen Ollie. Now if you'll be so kind as to tell us, with Scripture references (either to practice or principles):

How often we are to assemble?

Where we are to assemble?

How many should assemble?

Should we have a separate phone line?

If so, then what should we call our assembly (for phone directory purposes)?

Who should be the contact person?

Who should "hold the bag"?

How should he/she be chosen?

What should be done with the "love-gifts" - i.e. how and to whom should it be divided?

Who should decide this?

How are leaders/elders to be chosen - majority vote, skills tests?

Should they be reevaluted every 3, 6, 9, 12 months or at all?

Should the leaders/elders be paid?

Should they attend seminary? If so, who should pay for their instruction? (And should we have them as leaders if they need outside instruction!?!)

How often should we take communion - weekly, monthly, semi-monthly, bi-annually, annually?

Should it be soda and crackers, home-baked or store-bought bread, real wine or grape juice or should it be a full meal?

If real wine, then how much? (Should we set a one-drink minimum?) And should we literally share/pass THE cup?

What else are we to do when we assemble?
Study the Word? How - expositionally, thematically, randomly?
Are we to sing? How a cappella or with musical accompaniment?
Are we to pray together (individually? or collectively?)?
Lay hands on one another?
Greet each other with a holy kiss?
"Share what the Lord has done" for each individual during the previous assembly interim?

Should we register with the state? Take money from her in the form of tax deductions, non-profit status, etc.?

What should we do with the children? Take them off to another room, segregate them by ages?

Etc....

:help:

--C

[dantrotter]

Continuing with my generic response to previous posts...

Someone mentioned the Temple as an example of where Christians didn't meet in homes, the implication being that meeting in homes was not normative for church assemblies. I have heard this argument many, many times over the years, and I think that if one applies a little thought to it, one can determine that the argument is completely invalid, for the following reasons:

1) it was PUBLIC MINISTRY that was going on in the Temple, not church functions. Paul did teaching and apostolic work in Tyrannus' lecture hall (Acts 19), and likewise in synagogues, but the synagogue meeting was not a church meeting, nor were the times the Christians gathered in the Temple. One can examine all the verses that say the early Jerusalem Christians met in the Temple, and it is quite evident that church wasn't going on, evangelism was. Check out Acts 2:46a (cf v 47b), Acts 3:1,11; Acts 5:12b, Acts 5:21 (cf 5:12-16, 20), and Acts 5:42. An analogy: I think evangelism in football stadiums is great. But I don't want to have church in a football stadium. Evangelism is not church.

2) Even if the meetings in the temple were church meetings (and they were not), the meetings weren't in the temple, but in the temple court. There could not have been meetings in the temple, because inside the temple, bloody sacrfices were going on, things which had become sort of superannuated by Christ's blood sacrifice.

3) Jesus and the disciples despised the Temple as a symbol of the wicked old apostate Jewish order that murdered the prophets (cf Mt 24:1,2; Jn 4:21; Acts 7:48-49a). Why should we want to use a despised symbol of the dead and gone past as an exemplar for our modern day new covenant church meetings?

4) Even if the Temple did serve as a meeting place for the Christian ekklesia (and it did not), it was only for a very short time in a very limited geographical area. Christians no longer met in the Temple precincts when Saul started persecuting them (Ac 8:1-3). Also, the Temple could not have served all the Christians scattered over the Roman Empire, only the Christians in Jerusalem, a very, very small area compared to the Empire-wide thrust of the gospel.

Hope this helps...

[dantrotter]

In a quasi-defense of professionally paid clergy, someone mentioned that Paul received gifts, and the laborer is worthy of his hire, etc. It is very important to distinguish voluntary freewill offerings giving to Christian workers (which I am all in favor of), and salaries paid by an institution to a hired hand. There is a tremendous difference, which even the law of contracts recognizes. The former is given with no strings attached, voluntarily, as a gift, the latter is a contractual arrangement between an institution and an employee. The institution has the right to direct the work activity of the employee, if the employee does not like it, he must terminate his employment and seek work elsewhere. I submit that the relationship of leaders and sheep is utterly perverted with this mindset, when a leader, who has the mind to sacrifice himself by giving himself to the sheep, becomes an employee of the sheep. And think about it: every other minister (almost) who serves the flock does it voluntarily as a freewill gift, why shouldn't the leaders do the same? As Watchman Nee said, "In God's word we read of no worker asking for, or receiving a salary for his services. Paul made no contract with... any... church, that he should receive... remuneration for... service." If we look in the Scriptures we see that not only did church leaders not take salaries, they didn't raise money for themselves. Not one Scripture has Paul on "deputation" (although Paul did several times ask for hospitality and traveling help). Paul not only didn't raise money for himself, he never took money from those he was minstering to at the time (cf. Acts 20:34, 2 Cor 11:7-9, Phil 4:15-19, II Thess 3:8b-9). In fact, in Acts 20 we see Paul not only not taking money from others, but Paul actually paying the financial needs of his workers! This is a practice almost unheard of today (and incidentally, the occasion of that most famous saying, "it is more blessed to give than to receive.") (Paul did take freewill offerings from churches he had PREVIOUSLY ministered to). When Paul raised money, it was for only two groups: the poor, and other itinerant workers.

The two passages most often quoted in favor of professional salaried clergy are I Cor 9:3-18 and I Tim 5:17-18. It can be shown fairly easily that those two passages refer to the right of leaders (apostles in I Cor 9 and elders in I Tim 5:17-18) to receive financial support by voluntary freewill offerings, but on the contrary, those two passages do not refer to paid professional salaries, although they are often interpreted that way in an unthinking fashion.

First, I Cor 9. Paul says he has a "right" to eat and drink, and the "right" to refrain from working (vv 3-6). The verse says nothing about Paul receiving a salary (or wages). I would not want to deny any apostolic worker the right to eat. In fact, I give money to such workers, prompted by such verses as this. But that is not the same thing as a mission board paying a salary to a missionary, controlling his every movement, checking his reports, issuing unrealistic orders from home HQ, making the missionary fell like a hired hand, and generally making the missionary's life miserable. When I give money to an apostle, that apostle goes and ministers as he sees fit before God, and I wait for the result. I tell him nothing about his money should be spent.

Paul gives two metaphors concerning his right to eat. He says we shouldn't "muzzle the ox" while he is threshing. and a plowman who works by sowing, should be able to reap from his field. These metaphors have nothing to do with paying a Christian worker a salary. Is the ox a hired hand that gets paid wages after he works? No, this is just a metaphor showing that the ox needs to get taken care of after his work; the metaphor says nothing about HOW we are going to take care of the ox (i.e., paying him wages). As we all know, we can't make a metaphor walk on all fours by pressing every possible detail as an analogy. In fact, if we did that, we could just as well say that the believers should have fed Paul straw after he finished ministering to the saints! And likewise, are we going to say that a farmer's field employs him and pays him crops in return for the farmer's sowing? Of course not. The analogy has nothing to do with the modern practice of paying professional clergy.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in the place where Paul mentions that the worker "gets his living" from the gospel (I Cor 9:13-14), he mentions that the Levites get their "share" from the altar as a buttressing argument. These Levites were part time religious workers, not full time employees of the Temple. They spent most of their time farming. Another interesting point, after Paul's long disquisition in I Cor 9 in which he defends his "right" to get his living from the gospel, he then announces that he's not even going to use his right! (vv 12, 15, 18) One looks arouind today and is hard pressed to find any religious leaders forsaking their rights in this matter, for higher purposes.

The other verse that is often used in defense of a professionally paid clergy is I Tim 5:17,18: "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor... For the Scripture says you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "the laborer is worthy of his wages." Especially note the use of the term "wages", which seems to contradict all that I've written above.

1. What is double "honor"? (Gk word time is ambigous, can mean money, can mean honor.) Interestingly, most of the time in the NT time does not refer to money, and in fact, it is only in a relatively small number of instances that "time" means money. The word is used to refer to the value of Christ to believers, the value (or lack thereof) of human laws against the flesh, honor and esteem (of God, Christ, man, Aaronic priests, the reward of tried saints, believers appropriate for the master's use, for nations, etc.) There are several places where it is very clear the word does not mean money, and one of those places is right in the immediate context of our problem verse. For example slaves are to "honor" their master; this obviously can not refer to a slave paying his master money (I Tim 6:1). Now, I don't know whether Paul meant money or honor when he was referring to the elders who led well, but I am willing to concede that he meant money for the sake of argument. I have no problem with giving elders money voluntarily as a freewill offering, and in fact, I think its a great idea. I do not, however, believe in paying a church leader a salary, or wages. But, one might object, what about Paul's use of the word "wages" in I Tim 5:18? ("the laborer is worthy of his wages.") Does not the immediate context make one want to take "time" as money wages? However, consider this:
1A. If Paul meant "time" to have meant money wages, he would have used two available unambiguous Greek words which clearly meant "money wages" (misthos, opsonion).
1B. The elders who are said by Paul to be worthy of double honor were Ephesian elders, because Paul was writing to Timothy, and Timothy was in Ephesus (I Tim 1:3). The Ephesian elders are the same elders that Paul exhorted to GIVE, not receive, because it is more blessed to give than receive (Acts 20:34,35).
1C. There is a contextual argument favoring a non-monetary interpretation of "time." I Tim 5:19 says "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." So, one could argue that Pauls is saying to give a hard-working elder HONOR ("time") by not saying anything against him unless one has two or three witnesses.
1D. Even if "time" is money (questionable, at least), the money spoken of was freewill offerings, not salary or wages. Vines says of "time:" "here the meaning may be an honorarium." An honorarium is not a salary, as Webster's dictionary indicates: "1. a payment to a professional man for services on which NO FEE IS SET OR LEGALLY OBTAINABLE." 2. In England, the fee of a barrister, in allusion to the fact that a barister CANNOT ENFORCE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES."
1E. There are no pre-Constantinian references to any Christian clergy receiving a salary or wages. So if Paul meant salary or wages in I Tim 5:17,18, it is certainly strange that no one who read Paul's words for 300 years took him at his word to pay professional clergymen a salary. (Those who want to dismiss this as an argument from silence should consider how long and pervasive the silence is).
1F. "The laborer is worthy of his wages" is a quotation, not from the OT, but from Jesus' words in Luke 10:7 as he commissioned the seventy disciples: "And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire." Jesus here is patently not referring to wages. He is using wages as an ANALOGY to the situation where the disciples do work, and they get material reward. But the material reward they get is obviously not a wage, it's hospitality. So, if Jesus can use the picture of a wage laborer METAPHORICALLY, is it so difficult to conceive that Paul has done the same thing, when he quoted Jesus?

When the average pagan wants to tear down the Christian church, what is the first thing he jumps on? The sexual scandals? No. It's always money. And Christians are also getting tired of the established church's attitude towards money. I know of one megachurch in my state that did a survey before it got started, and discovered that one of the salient gripes of the Christians responding was the church's attitude toward the raising of and demanding of money. So this megachurch now refuses to pass the plate.

Query: would we have the image we do in the eyes of public, if the church in America even roughly approximated the apostolic view of finance?

[dantrotter]

Concerning the discussion of the translation of "dialegomai"...

Someone said it was clear that that the speech that occasioned the fall of Eutychus from the window (Gk: dialegomai). was not a dialogue carried on by Paul, but rather a sermon. I think a quick survey of the Greek authorities should disabuse us of this notion. For example, Vines, at "Discourse (dialegomai)": "... to converse, dispute, discuss, discourse with; most frequently, to reason or dispute with. In Heb 12:5 the RV, "reasoneth with" is to be preferred to the AV, "speaketh unto." The AV translates it "preached," in Acts 20:7 and 9; this the RV correct to "discoursed," lit., 'dialogued,' i.e., not by way of a sermon, but by a discourse of a more conversational character."

Sermons simply did not exist in the New Testament church. A quick look at I Cor 12-14 should confirm that. Sermons are essentially Greek oratorical inventions, imported into the Christian church, and transmitted through tradition down through the centuries.

Everyone knows that lecture methods are pedagogically the worst there are for teaching. The inert, passive human mind doesn't process too much of a lecture (sermon). But the engaged, active mind will learn a lot more. Socrates knew this. Jesus knew this. Why don't we? I haven't listened to sermons in over a decade, and quite frankly, I'm happier for it.

[tschmidt]

I have a few questions for house-church advocates:

Does a house church require someone's house to meet in or can a building (like a modern church) be used?

About leadership. It seems clear in the Gospels that the apostles were heads of churches and they made decisions about doctrine. For instance, Paul didn't ask for a democratic vote on faith before works, he went to the elders and apostles in Jerusalem. How does this reconcile with the house-church model?
Also, it appears that there were various levels of leadership. You had Apostles, then you had people like Timothy and Titus (elders?) who would appoint overseers, then you had overseers, then deacons. How are leaders selected?

How big does a house church get? Unless someone has quite a big house, more than 20 people would be a large burden. Surely the Chrstians in the first century met in house churches, but they also must have gathered somewhere else in large numbers. How else would Paul's epistles have been read to the Churches? And why are they addressed to the "Church" in "X" and not the "Churches"?

I belive that the principles of the NT church should be applied to all cultures, but I do think that these principles should vary in their implementation depending on the culture.

[HerodionRomulus]

11-02-2003 @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=269352#post269352)
dantrotter:



Sermons simply did not exist in the New Testament church. A quick look at I Cor 12-14 should confirm that. Sermons are essentially Greek oratorical inventions, imported into the Christian church, and transmitted through tradition down through the centuries.

Everyone knows that lecture methods are pedagogically the worst there are for teaching. The inert, passive human mind doesn't process too much of a lecture (sermon). But the engaged, active mind will learn a lot more. Socrates knew this. Jesus knew this. Why don't we? I haven't listened to sermons in over a decade, and quite frankly, I'm happier for it.


First, I believe you are wrong about sermons not existing. Are you familiar with the Jewish midrash?
To the Hebrews is a good example. Though it has been wrongly considered a letter, it is the transcript of a sermon, probably by Paul.

Next, I understand what you say about sermons today. Most are full of hype and have little content---they are designed to make the audience feel good, not be built up.

[dantrotter]

Thanks tschmidt for your questions!

1. "House church" is an unfortunate term, in some ways. I prefer the term "biblical house church" or "biblical" church, for several reasons. One, although where one meets is important, there are a lot of other important things that go into the normative NT church. Two, lots of people do things in houses that are completely unbiblical, and yet they call what they do "house church." However, we are stuck with the name.

If one takes the apostolic practice as normative ecclesiologically (as I do), then meeting in families' homes was definitely normative. If I remember correctly, there are about 16 references to "the church in Xn's home." (or passages where the home can be inferred, as for example, in James where James says its bad to say to the poor man to sit by the "footstool," there being no footstools in religious buildings but there are in homes). Now, usually the clear apostolic practice is pooh-poohed by saying that there are special reasons that the early church met in homes that don't apply today: 1) Christians poorer back then (not true,
I addressed this in a previous post), 2) Christians were persecuted and forced to meet in homes (query: then why was Paul in Acts 8 able to find the Christians in the home in order
to persecute them? Homes do not stop persecution - we can ask the Christians in China to see that this is true. 3) church was immature back then, but mature today. I think merely to state this explanation is to refute it - I would much rather have the "immature" first century church than today's "mature" institutional church, which is moribund in many parts of the West.

Meeting in homes is an ends to other means: 1) much easier to eat the Lord's Supper as a full meal of joyous fellowship, and not as a ritualistic, gloomy, melancholy, funereal soda-crackers-and-shot-glass liturgy. Families eat together in a home, why shouldn't the church family do the same thing? 2) Intimacy is fostered in homes, an intimacy that church buildings hinder, if not kill. 3) Interactive sharing (I Cor 12,14) is facilitated in a home: non-threatening situation that encourages shy people to encourage one another by exercising their gifts. Public buildings kill that type of interaction - a look into any institutional Sunday morning service will prove that. 4) money is not spent on enormously
expensive buildings - saved for giving to itinerant workers (apostles, evangelists, prophets), and for giving to the poor.
2. Re Paul's relationship with the apostles at Jerusalem in Acts 15, please consider the following:

1) Who sent Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem? Ans: - the brethren, the "church" at Antioch, not the elders at Antioch, not the pastor at Antioch. (Ac 15:2,3)

2) Who welcomed Paul & Barnabus to Jerusalem? Ans - the church, the apostles, and the elders (not the "pastor" of the Church of Jerusalem (Ac 15:4)

3) Who sent Judas & Silas from Jerus to Antioch? Ans - apostles, elders, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH. (Ac 15:22. So, the WHOLE CHURCH participated in the decision to send the decision of the famous Jerusalem Council. THis, of course, is not to deny the LEADERSHIP of James and Peter in coming to the decision. BUt it is clear that this was a consensus decision arrived at by the whole church.

Now, I do not mean to say from the above that doctrine is "democratically" derived. Of course not. Doctrine (including ecclesiology) is revealed to apostles who deliver it to us,
we don't vote on its truth. However, as you know, there are a lot of sub-doctrinal issues that come up all the time. Those issues are decided, not "democratically", but by CONSENSUS: examples: (1) Matt 18:17, (church discipline), tell it to the CHURCH (not the pastor, not the elders),

2) choosing Mathias to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26) (An apostolic decision, not a church decision, but still a decision of consensus) - see especially the word "they" in vv. 23,24, 3)

3)Ac 6 (Greek widows not getting food - who chose the food servers? Cf. vv 3-6: "brothers", "whole group", "they",

4) I Cor 5:4,5 (gross sin in Corinth) "When you (plural) are ASSEMBLED,... hand this man over to Satan.

You are right when you say that there are levels of leadership, but one thing needs to be added: the leadership is in different spheres. The apostles were in charge of the "work" (synonym: the ministry), they were not in charge of the churches. The brethren (not the leaders) were in charge of the churches (local assemblies). The apostles were not in charge of the churches. The churches and the workers supported each other, of course, but they didn't get into each other's hair. Cf. Watchman Nee's The Church and the Work, which is excellent on this.

Elders were appointed by local assemblies, choices sometimes confirmed by apostles. This is not crystal clear in Scripture. However, there are two Gk words used to describe the
process, which are translated "ordained," etc. in the Eng versions. Sounds so official, formal. The meaning is more like "raise the hands", i.e., in approval, by the brethren. I have more on this if you're interested, just not at my fingertips right now.

Workers were chosen in Acts 13 by "prayer and fasting", laying on of hands by the church sending the workers out.

How many people to meet in a home church? No number is sacred, but when intimacy, interactive contribution of spiritual gifts, Lord's Supper as a full meal, etc., is sacrificed, the church is too large, and needs to divide. Your statement that over 20 is a
large burden is probably only accurate in an American context. Americans are used to such space and comfort. A trip to the UK or China, where much more than 20 are crammed into houses without complaint, should confirm this.

Your statement that the Christians must have met other than in homes in large places. There is absolutely no Scriptural evidence of this, and no literary, historical evidence of this, and no archaelogical evidence of it either. If Xns met in large places, where were they? To say that they had to meet in large places so that Paul's letters could be read to them is not valid. Paul's letters were copied and passed around, they could easily have been passed from house to house.

Paul's letters (never addressed at all to the "pastor" of a church, and never exclusively to the "elders" of a church, but usually to the "brethren") were addressed to the "Church in Galatia" for example. This didn't mean that the church in Galatia met in one assembly, that would be absurd. Galatia was a very large area. Just means church is just used to refer to the collectivity of believers (who gathered locally in individual homes). We do this when we refer to the "universal" church, we don't mean all the Christians in the world meet in one place.

Yes, fundamental ecclesiological principles should be transferred to other cultures, leaving room for freedom on non-fundamental principles. I listed the 16 or 17 or so fundamental principals I believe should be universal, for all times, all places, and all cultures, in my original article. That still leaves a lot of freedom. Most people today, however, do what's right in their own eyes concerning church, without any regard at all for what the Christ-commissioned apostles laid out. All freedom, no form, a grave mistake, in my view, given what has happened to the Western church.

Hope this helps!

[elderbanks]

NO MATTER WHAT REASON ONE GIVES THE ASSEMBLY OF THE BELEVERS IS THE COMMANDMENT FROM GOD. DOES A HOME ALONE WITHOUT FELLOW BELIEVERS NOT JUST FAMILY, OR WHEN THEY ARE STARTING A CHRUCH AND THE HOME IS FIRST. YOU WOULD BE A PREIST BY ONES SELF.

[dantrotter]

elderbancs,

You are absolutely right, just meeting as one family in a home is not a home church. No biblical precedent for it. A lot of home schoolers are doing it, so many in fact that Jonathan Lindvall, a teacher and speaker well-known in home school circles, has done a tape pointing out the error of that idea.

[dantrotter]

11-07-2003 @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=274662#post274662)
HerodionRomulus:




First, I believe you are wrong about sermons not existing. Are you familiar with the Jewish midrash?
To the Hebrews is a good example. Though it has been wrongly considered a letter, it is the transcript of a sermon, probably by Paul.

Next, I understand what you say about sermons today. Most are full of hype and have little content---they are designed to make the audience feel good, not be built up.

Frankly, I have never heard anyone say that Hebrews is Jewish midrash, or the transcript of a sermon. Do you have any authority for this? Sounds like a very strange assertion to me. At the very end of the letter the author says to "greet your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you." Sounds an awful lot like a letter to me, and not at all like a sermon.

Thanks...

[dantrotter]

Somewhere back in the thread someone said this: "the building makes the operation of the church more efficient and effective."

I find this statement to be quite remarkable, for several reasons:

1. Special Christian religious buildings are extremely expensive, and are empty during the vast majority of the week.

2. Most of the money spent on Christian religious buildings is spent not on efficiency and effectiveness, but religiosity: monstrous organs, throne like chairs for the clergy to sit in to tell us about the priesthood of ALL believers, altar rails to separate all the believers who are priests from the ones up front doing all the priestly ministry, stain glass, thick carpets, plush offices for the pastor who is co-priest with all the other priests who never say anything, but who cough up huge hunks of their paychecks to pay for it all. (I realize that on the low-church end of the spectrum this hyperbole doesn't hold)

3. As a percentage, the amount of support that goes to buildings is very, very high, and the amount that goes to support the poor and missionaries is very, very low. Ask any missionary here in the USA.

4. Large buildings do not make the church more "effective," they make it disfunctional. A church is suppose to be a family. Just recently I asked a friend in a nearby city about another friend attending his large church. The first friend didn't even know the second friend was attending his church! Buildings, especially large ones, kill intimacy between Christian brothers and sisters.

5. Large buildings tend to foster a sense of the falsely numinous, which makes a lot of Christians feel peaceful and spiritual, but which is actually an emotional substitute for the peace of Christ. We give religious names to things in the building, which becomes a sort of subsitute for the true temple of Christ (the believers): for example, the "altar," the "sanctuary." Those are OT concepts smuggled in through centuries of tradition into are new covenant churches, and that's not good theology, nor practice.

[dantrotter]

Someone previously said that my argument that there was no worship leader in the NT church was an argument from silence. Actually, my argument is an argument from Scripture, namely I Cor 14: 26 "...EACH ONE has a psalm" and Col 3:16 "teaching and admonishing ONE ANOTHER with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." THis doesn't sound like there was only one worship leader to me.

Now, I realize that you can construct an argument to make it logically possible that there was one worship leader, even in the light of the previous verses. It would go like this: "Under the direction of the worship leader, each one admonishes one another with psalms." Granted, but what are the probabilities that is really true? If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on it. Especially in light of the fact that only a cursory reading of I Cor 12 & 14 shows mutual participation and interaction all over the place: prophecy, tongues and interpretation, etc.

I realize there is a fine line here, that I have had to face practically in doing church biblically. Division of labor is clearly called for, because everyone has different spiritual gifts. But if you're not careful, you get in a rut where everyone does the same thing every week. On the other hand, to get out of the rut means people who arent' as gifted as the "experts" have to do their thing when someone else is available who can do it better.

Take prophecy for example: the prophets are to prophesy and judge (I Cor 14:29), but then: you may ALL prophesy one by one (I Cor 14:31). Or evangelism: there are obviously some who are evangelists, having been gifted that way, but that doesn't mean that all the rest of us non-evangelists shouldn't witness when we have the opportunity. Using that analogy, I would say this about a "worship leader." The ones who are gifted should definitely take the lead, and lead in that area. But they should always be sensitive to the fact that a lot of folks who aren't gifted the way they are might want to express their love for the Lord in a song, and they should be given the freedom, and rather, should be encouraged, to do so.

I will close on this by pointing out that rarely, if ever, does the average Christian in the large church have anything to do with leading out in song. I have seen it once in my life, about 20 years ago in a large church in Brunswick, Ga. The professional "worship leaders" have taken all the spontaneity out of NT church life, which spontaneity is suggested by I Cor 14:26, and Col 3:16.

[dantrotter]

In response to my assertion that denominations are unjustified biblically, someone in the thread parried that assertion by pointing out that we only have a few years of church history, which are mostly Paul's travels. The implication of this defense is that Paul's activities are relatively unimportant in the entire scheme of things, that the church is free to grow from its infant apostolic change, and in growing, evolve into something unPauline.

The above line of argument is rampant in Christendom, and in my view seriously detracts from the apostles' authority in establish Christianity, everything about Christianity, including its ecclesiology. Why do Christians always assume that when Jude talks about "the faith ONCE DELIVERED" to the saints, the content of that faith is soteriology, or theology proper, but not ecclesiology? The ecclesiology was once delivered also, and it is described by the words of Paul, and reflected in the churches established by Paul. And Paul didn't mean to be contradicted, or told that his church "model" was temporary, or infantile, to be grown out of. When Paul said in I Cor 14:37 that "the things which I write to you are the Lord's COMMANDMENT." What things was Paul writing to the Corinthians? The immediate context is clear: the whole chapter of I Cor 14 is about church meetings (ecclesiology), the next couple of verses after are about church meetings. And Paul's said that if anyone didn't recognize his COMMANDS about the Lord's church, he would not be "recognized." (I Cor 14:38, NASB). Whatever being unrecognized was, it wasn't a good thing.

Why are we so cavalier about the way the apostles did church? Someone in this thread said it was "arrogant" that I would claim that there existed a normative design for the church. I respond: what is more arrogant? To say what I said, or to completely reject what Christ-commissioned apostles said about doing church, and substitute for the apostles' way, our way? I submit that the latter is not only arrogant, it is destructive to the proper care and nurturing of Jesus' sheep.

In my original article, I quoted a whole string of Scriptures that clearly showed that Paul expected to be obeyed in his commands, and followed in his example, in church matters. No one has even mentioned those Scriptures. Why are these Scriptures ignored?

I am not trying to arrogantly posit a "new" way (method, model, etc.) of doing church, I am trying to humbly submit myself to the way Jesus and his apostles wanted it done. I think if we would all humbly submit ourselves to what Jesus revealed through his apostles, we would all be a lot happier.

One last point. In his post-resurrection, pre-ascension days, Jesus appeared to the apostles for forty days, and spoke to them "of the things concerning the kingdom of God." Now, the kingdom of God is more than the church, but it includes the church. And the establishment of the church was the next thing on the agenda, during that 40 day period. For forty days Jesus taught the apostles about how they were going to establish the Christian church. After that 40 day instruction, I think the apostles knew what they were doing. I do not think that modern day institutionalists have the same insight. We have gone way off track, with tragic results.

[HerodionRomulus]

11-14-2003 @ 07:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286146#post286146)
dantrotter:

Frankly, I have never heard anyone say that Hebrews is Jewish midrash, or the transcript of a sermon. Do you have any authority for this? Sounds like a very strange assertion to me. At the very end of the letter the author says to "greet your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you." Sounds an awful lot like a letter to me, and not at all like a sermon.

Thanks...

The Anchor Bible commentary volume on To The Hebrews by Buchanan suggests this, and the passage expounded upon is Ps 110.

How about the lack of salutation or introduction? That is not very letter-like.

This should be available thru your local library or thru interlibrary loan.
Note, AB just redid this book with a new author in 2001, I am not familiar with it, just the older commentary.

[HerodionRomulus]

11-14-2003 @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=286162#post286162)
dantrotter:

2. Most of the money spent on Christian religious buildings is spent not on efficiency and effectiveness, but religiosity: monstrous organs, throne like chairs for the clergy to sit in to tell us about the priesthood of ALL believers, altar rails to separate all the believers who are priests from the ones up front doing all the priestly ministry, stain glass, thick carpets, plush offices for the pastor who is co-priest with all the other priests who never say anything, but who cough up huge hunks of their paychecks to pay for it all. (I realize that on the low-church end of the spectrum this hyperbole doesn't hold)

Yes it may. I know a Missionary Baptist church which has a huge overstuffed white leather lazyboy recliner in the middle of the platform area---reserved only for the senior pastor.

3. As a percentage, the amount of support that goes to buildings is very, very high, and the amount that goes to support the poor and missionaries is very, very low. Ask any missionary here in the USA.

But fancy buildings make people feel a sense of accomplishment and let them rationalize away the lack of authentic Christian work: feed the hungry, support the marginalized, visit the prisoners, fight for justice etc etc

[wdwwilder]

The church are the people not where you meet It can be outside on mars hill or in a rented hall like the upper room It can be in a catacome or a graveyard It can be by a river with a maker of purple and woman reading scripture as they wash cloths. We must not limit God he speaks and moves in new ways all the time Let us be true to the Spirit of the bible not to the picky semantics of words. We can and should worship God everywhere and in all settings as Jesus told the woman at the well.

[dantrotter]

11-23-2003 @ 11:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=311326#post311326)
wdwwilder:

Doug,

You say this:

The church are the people not where you meet It can be outside on mars hill or in a rented hall like the upper room It can be in a catacome or a graveyard It can be by a river with a maker of purple and woman reading scripture as they wash cloths. We must not limit God he speaks and moves in new ways all the time Let us be true to the Spirit of the bible not to the picky semantics of words. We can and should worship God everywhere and in all settings as Jesus told the woman at the well.

I think that your post illustrates exactly the cavalier attitude of the modern church towards the apostles that Jesus commissioned. I have said in earlier posts, and I repeat here, that Paul expected not contradiction when he said in I Cor 14:37: "THE THINGS I WRITE TO YOU are the LORD'S commandment." Query: What were the things that he wrote to the Corinthians? (Ans: all kinds of things about how to do church). Are we to think that the Lord's commands are nits to pick? Your statement above is mystical, navel-gazing stuff. Of course, we are to worship God everywhere, even at football games. But a football game is not the NT ecclesia.

You say that we can and should worship God everywhere. Well, how about the Moonbeam Manor described in my original article? I would hope you would not attend such a ridiculous place in order to worship God, or to think that you were having church there. Interestingly, someone in a previous post took my reductio ab absurdum and actually agreed with my posited absurdity: that, since there were not positive prohibitions of Moonbeam Manor's nonsense, it would be perfectly OK to go to church there!

I will issue a challenge here to anyone else who thinks that in church matters they are free to do what is right in their own eyes, at the expense of the clear apostolic, Scriptural example: answer my article. I keep getting naked assertions, but nobody actually takes in order to refute the many Scriptures I quoted in that article showing that there was an apostolic design for the church.

Furthermore, have you thought about the logic of the implications of your statement: "We must not limit God he speaks and moves in new ways all the time." What if I said, "I agree with you, and the Metropolitan Community Church is an example of a new way God is speaking and moving. He is moving against the ancient homophobic ways, and now he has giving us a new way: today we condone homosexuality as a God-given option. We don't want to nitpick over the semantics that Paul used when he condemned homosexuality in no uncertain terms."

To me, the Bible is not an authority to be overthrown on the slightest whim. And to think that the Bible has nothing to say on one of the most important things I can think of, namely, how Christians live together and present their corporate witness to the world, is in my view, well... preposterous.

[dantrotter]

11-18-2003 @ 01:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=294416#post294416)
HerodionRomulus:


How about the lack of salutation or introduction? That is not very letter-like.



Herodion,

That's a good point, but the final four verses sound very unmidrash-like: "But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly...Greet all your leaders with the saints. Those from Italy greet you. Grace be with you all." How in the world can that be a sermon? It's got to be a letter.

I think that if one has to use the argument that Hebrews is a Jewish midrash, and also a sermon, illustrates how weak the case is for the existence of sermons in the NT church.

Thanks for the pointer to Buchanan...

Dan

[wdwwilder]

There is a difference between the mode of and setting corporate worship and the doctorinal content teachings. the message cannot change but how it is shared can. I agree there are constants dictated by scripture but if something is not implicily or explicticitly forbiden then I feel it is allowed. No where do I find a commandment that says thou shall not buy a buliding to worship in neither does it seem to imply this rather the scripture seems to speak mostly about a Holy spirit organized and controled body of believers who share there lives in ways seldom seen in today's church. The problem with most home church group is they tend to drift from the truth because of the limited number of people involved and the narrow perspective of the group one "gifted " speaker can shift the group away on a tangent by clever argument and selective use of scripture. My own brother who made the frontpage of the new york times in a feature on the home church movement has a home church in his home and I would never say the idea is unbiblical. But there are pit falls and traps we unlike the early church do not have the correcting hand of a Paul or a Peter(except in scripture) to prevent the growth of unortodox and unbiblical teachings there is a small degee of security in a numbers if desenting voices are allowed to speak and if all are constrained by scriptural mandates under the leadership of an pastor and elders . I belive the bible has much to say about the structure of authority in the church and the qualification of the overseer, elder and deacon it is hard to see how such a structure would function in a body limited to the walls of a house unless the house is a really big one.

[dantrotter]

I agree there are constants dictated by scripture but if something is not implicily or explicticitly forbiden then I feel it is allowed. No where do I find a commandment that says thou shall not buy a buliding to worship in

Hi WDW Wilder!

There's no command either to separate the church from state. Should we just then willy-nilly join the state with the church? There's no command prohibiting snake-handling. Should we? The whole premise of my original article is that Moonbeam Manor, an utterly disgusting and farcical excuse for a church, does not contradict one single prohibition of Scripture. So, should we be free to act like that in our church life? I'm certainly not going to.

Why in the world do we feel like the example the apostles set for us is not only not binding, but rather, to be utterly ignored? Does it not bother you that if one of the apostles showed up at the First Church in Anytown, USA, he wouldn't have the foggiest idea of what was going on?

If you are not constrained by the pattern of the NT church, then what are you contrained by? What you "feel?"

If you see the example of Jesus when Jesus is doing something, but doesn't actually teach on it, wouldn't you follow the example? And if its true of Jesus, why wouldn't it be true of Paul, who said "imitate me even as I imitate Christ."?

The problem with most home church group is they tend to drift from the truth because of the limited number of people involved and the narrow perspective of the group one "gifted " speaker can shift the group away on a tangent by clever argument and selective use of scripture

This is a broad generalization that may apply to a particular home church, but which definitely does not apply to the biblical church. Its the institutional church that has "one speaker." Its the IC who hears the same guy over and over again. The biblical church says "each one" is to give a word of instruction, prophesy, etc. Sure, a home church can get in to error, but so can the institutional church, very few of which these days hold to even the essentials of orthodoxy. The biblical church is governed by consensus, not by a one-man pastor-pope, who himself can get off into error, and who then lead lots of other people with him.

My own brother who made the frontpage of the new york times in a feature on the home church movement has a home church in his home and I would never say the idea is unbiblical.

Yipes! What a small world! I know your brother, have seen him at several conferences, and hosted his whole family at my house one weekend.


But there are pit falls and traps we unlike the early church do not have the correcting hand of a Paul or a Peter(except in scripture) to prevent the growth of unortodox and unbiblical teachings

The IC doesn't have the correcting hand of a Paul or a Peter either. It has the Scripture the same as home church folks do. But BIBLICAL home church folks (I acknowledge there are a lot of folks doing church in their home for all the wrong reasons, not for biblical reasons) are trying to follow the Scripture in EVERY area, including ecclesiology. Do you really think that the IC, with all of its creeds, constitutions, traditions, pastors, seminaries, has done a good job of maintaining orthodoxy today? The IC is shot through with heresy. Systems don't maintain orthodoxy, so it is not a congenital weakness of home churchers that they don't maintain orthodoxy (I acknowledge also that there is a lot of doctrinal screwiness in home churches, but that's not the point. I'm arguing that there is nothing intrinsic within doing church the biblical way that leads more easily to heresy. And why should doing church the BIBLICAL way lead to more heresy than doing church the TRADITIONAL way?)

[dizzle]

I would like to revive this conversation.

[studyhound]

I would like to revive this conversation.Ok :popcorn:

[Jezz]

I would like to revive this conversation.
I'll do my best to make some more in-depth comments on this later in the week, but the first comment I can make is this:

If Dan wishes to be completely faithful to the Church as it was in NT times, and not hang on to anything that they didn't have then, then there is something else that he must throw out: the New Testament. The Church of NT times didn't have a New Testament...

Of course, instead of trying to be like the NT Church, you could simply join the NT Church - which is still in existence today...

[HerodionRomulus]

Plus the church in NT times used the whole Jewish Bible.
Paul (among others) makes extensive use of the books of Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.