The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be.

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be.

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

House Church (again!) (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Clarifications (RTC)
Date: 2001, Apr 28
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Dear RTC,
From your answers, it is clear that the churches of today have not violated any NT principles.
1. Is meeting in a place other than homes against the NT model?
++No. But the usual places of meeting were the homes of believers.
ME: That's right. "Usual", not "must". And could the apostles have built public churches given that Jesus was crucified as a common criminal? If the apostles were alive during Constantine time, isn't there a possibility that they would have centralised churches in order to guard against heresies?
2. Is employing full time pastors against the NT model?
++The idea of employment of church workers is foreign to the NT model.
ME: "Foreign" is not "contradict". In other words, the bible does not say you cannot employ full time pastors. Sure, they don't do it during the apostles' time and I too believe that today, full time paid pastors should not (note: should not, not must not) be encouraged, especially when the money comes from the offerings.
3. Is partaking the Lord's supper apart from a full meal against the NT model?
++The NT church certainly did not partake it apart from the full meal.
ME: Again, we know they did not but can we not? What theology can be built from the fact that you must eat a full meal with the Lord's Supper? I don't dispute the single fact that it was taken together in the NT times but then to read the implication that it must then be so for every Lord's Supper is eisegesis.
We are to partake the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner and as often as we do that, we are to remember Christ - these are the principles laid down. It doesn't say, if you don't take it as part of a communal meal, it is wrong. That is what you are saying but on what basis you draw that conclusion? Simply because they did it? Then what is stopping us from stretching it further. We are told that the Passover meal is eaten "with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste:" (Exodus 12:11). We are not told that Jesus abrogated any of these. So do you follow such? I'm sure you don't.
It seems quite arbitrary for you to insist that it must be taken in a communal meal just because the NT did it. By this, you say that what we do in our churches are wrong. Is that what you say? Because if this is not it, then we are free to eat it with or without a communal meal.
4. Is having a headquarter church (like say the Methodists) plus branches against the NT model?
++The NT church practiced no such organisational setup.
ME: But is it against the NT model, that is, is it wrong? If it is not, then again we are free to do so if it advance our Christian cause both to evangelise and to disciple.
5. Is the Sunday Service liturgy and order in churches against the NT model?
++It certainly violates the 1 Cor 14:26 principle of church meetings.
ME: 1 Corinthians 14:26 says:
"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." (KJV)
In our order of service, we have a time of worship when the someone (that's one) leads the worship, then we have someone else (that's two) to read Scriptures, follow by one to lead a time of testimonies (that's three), and then the pastor preaches or teaches (that's four). How is it then that our order of service violates 1 Cor 14:26? Not unless you say that the text indicates that everything must be spontaneous with the resulting disorderliness and confusion.
We are very comfortable subscribing to 1 Cor 14:26 in our order of service. That too is our biblical basis for our service. In fact, by adding cell groups to our list of activities, we bring it down to bite sizes so that deeper fellowship and sharing and ministering can occur.
I'm sure the NT meetings in homes did not have an order of service and such orderliness, but again, does our order of service contradict the principle laid out in 1 Cor 14:26? Is the principle of 1 Cor 14:26 about not having an order of service, not designating people to lead various segments? Is that the principle?
6. Is collecting offering to maintain the meeting place against the NT model?
++No such offering collected in the NT church was aimed towards such purpose.
ME: I agree with you that it wasn't done but again, can we not do it? Offering is free will. No one is coerced. There are abuses of course - those who preach tithes as a way of coercing giving - but no one is forced. It is not the case that in the churches, offering collection is de facto coerced.
Say, a house church has grown to 50 and the unanimous consent of the people is that they want to meet in a public place and they are willing to fund their own meetings. Does that contradict the NT model? I know the NT doesn't do it but is it because they have specifically chosen not to meet in public places or in public buildings? Remember that Jesus was condemned as a common criminal and that Christianity was not a tolerated religion.
I'll give my answers too. My answer to all is no because the bible neither forbids nor promulgates any of these.
++You are arguing from a negative. I argue from positive examples as given in Scripture. If you say no to any of the above, then it would not be right to say that such is based on NT model. You are only justified in saying that it is an argument from silence.
ME: How did you argue positively? I would also claim that I argue positively when I point out that the Passover was eaten "with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste:" (Exodus 12:11). And the fact that you don't do it means that you are not following the NT model. That's what the ancient Jews did, what Jesus and the apostles did, and what some Jews today probably still do!
I still can say that the churches today are based on the NT model because first, we do follow the principles: presbyters, deacons, etc. observing the Lord's Supper and baptism, preaching the Gospel, discipline, etc. Sure, we cannot say that we did everything exactly as the apostles had done. But can the house church say that? It is quite clear (from my other post) that the apostles left no elaborate ecclesiology because the church is to evolve with the times while holding on to the cardinal principles. Calvin, for instance, indicates that there are only four chief concerns the true Church of Christ needs remember - worship, salvation, sacraments and government:
"If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain.
After these come the sacraments and the government of the church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and points out the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcass.
As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the pious, or among men of right and sane mind." (The Necessity of Reforming the Church)
I believe the churches of today are biblical in all these areas.
What the bible says is that that is what the early disciples did but it doesn't say that is what Christians of all ages must do.
++I agree. The “must do’s and don’ts” are usually those of a moral nature. Any reference to the way they meet are usually to correct certain excesses and abuses and not to stop the practice. The NT as letters addressing church issues and problems are not therefore a manual detailing the steps of how churches should meet. But it will be certainly significant to remember that all the NT letters were written to house churches. Neither does the NT contemplate any other form of expression of the church. In fact, many of the NT writings make better sense if understood within the context of non-institutional house churches.
ME: I agree with you. You see, it is not a question at all that the NT met in houses, that letters were written to congregations, rather than house churches, and that the NT does not indicate any other form of expression of the church. But in order to say that the churches of today are out of sync with the Nt, you need more than just say, look, they didn't do this, they didn't do that. What you must show is that the NT model was the ONE and ONLY way any church should operate. That they didn't do these things we do today ON PURPOSE. This conclusion was simply assumed by you.
You see, you list all the things that the NT church did and then conclude that this is the ONLY legitimate and biblical way. But did the apostles say so? No, so your position is far from being proven from Scriptures. If anything, both our positions are nullified by Scriptures since we don't have the same kind of houses, do the same actions, say the same words, etc. More examples can also be given: do you eat unleavened bread at the Lord's supper? They slaughtered and roasted a lamb for that communal meal at the Lord's Supper, do you do that? If you say that these things are optional whereas the practice of having the Lord's supper as part of a communal mean is mandatory and biblical, please show how and you haven't.
On the other hand, we believe they didn't do those things we do today because 1)they might not have needed that as they met in homes and in smaller groups 2)Christianity could not be proclaimed as freely then. But neither of these implies that we can't do it today as long as the biblical principles are adhered to. And I believe they are, it may be to varying degrees in different denominations and churches, but they are. Corporate participation, utilisation of spiritual gifts, body ministry, preaching of God's word, teaching - they are all there!
It's really a matter of prudence and expediency.
++Disagree. There is always a theology behind practice, and sheer pragmatism certainly wasn’t one of them. But if you want to talk prudence and expediency, then what can be more simple, economical and expedient than the house churches?
ME: You can disagree but you can't say it violates biblical principles. As I said, neither of us can claim that we adhere 100% to the NT model. In fact, we need not do so as the bible does not indicate so. Whereas we must emphasise that men cannot be saved apart from faith alone in Christ, that they cannot be truly converted without bearing fruit, we cannot say with equal force that non-adherence to the NT church model implies sinful deviation.
For a group of 10-15, it is simpler and more economical to run it as a house church but it is impractical to do so for 100 or more. We could break it up into smaller groups and have meetings in more than one home. Sure, that is a good option but it is up to that congregation, isn't it? If that congregation prefers to have a meeting altogether, what's stopping them? The bible? No. They may, perhaps, be concerned with doctrine and the possibility that cults may infiltrate individual house churches and lead them astray. Even though they may break into smaller groups, they would still want some connection with a "head" group so that doctrines are guarded.
As you pointed out, the public churches were permitted and built after Constantine but there is another reason also. These were to guard against heresies. Schismatics were always suspect during those days and the canon of Scripture was still in flux although it is forming.
++The NT never envisage institutionalizing the church as a combat against heresies. False teachers are to be refuted, and in some cases, ignored. Church buildings do not do that. The problem with the bishop thing was that people began to look to one man as the sole guardian of biblical doctrines. But it was never to be upon the shoulders of one man or one person and neither did any of the Apostles teach such a way. This is just one of fallen man’s tendency to set up kings to fight their battles, sounds like history repeating itself doesn’t it?
ME: You said that the NT "never" envisage institutionalising the church as a combat against heresies. Does the bible say so? On the contrary, see what Paul told Timothy who was what we might call the chief elder at Ephesus:
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
"As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do... This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;" (1 Timothy 1:1-4,18 KJV)
Such passages can be multiplied. Even when the apostles were alive, there were heresies which the church (the elders specifically) was called upon to combat. It wasn't for body ministry alone that the church came into being.
You said, "False teachers are to be refuted, and in some cases, ignored. Church buildings do not do that." Neither do homes, or kitchen or bedroom. Is the church building the church? If it is, then why isn't the four walls of a home the church also? Are you employing double standards?
It is true that people can become lax and leave the ministry to a few people. How is this problem solved by meeting in homes than in a church building? And whatever solution you have in place in the house church, can they not be implemented in the church too? I believe you are arguing a straw man here. No church teaches that the office of teaching and refuting heresies belonged only to the pastor. The tendencies of man to make it such do not make the church bad just as human tendencies to misinterpret Scriptures do not make the Scriptures less authoritative or infallible.
Today we have the sure Word of God and so perhaps this is why the cell group works so well. It's all part of the evolution of the church.
++All the more then that we need to look at present church practices with the sure Word of God. The cell group works because it has some features of the house church. However, the cell groups are not able to achieve their full potential because they are limited by the organisational parameters set by the church. Many of these groups have their life curtailed because they need to meet organisational goals of multiplying in six months or some other set time.
ME: This only shows that the cell group administration needs to be finetuned and improved. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
YOU: The Bible never portray house churches as under the controlling umbrella of a mother church, they are all autonomous in their operations and yet maintaining connections with other house churches.
ME: Perhaps so although the council at Jerusalem does indicate that there was some central authority. In any case, that laid the foundation for the ecumenical councils.
We are back to square one. Yes, the NT tells us much about the NT church but does it say that it is THE way for churches of all ages? That is what you must prove, not simply that that was how they did it. We do not dispute that. Sure, that's how they did it but are we to do it exactly the same way today, failing which constitutes a noncompliance with biblical ecclesiology? And why must we stop at certain features while ignoring the rest if we insist that the NT model must be adhered to?
YOU: I believe with my whole heart that if cell churches really go the way of decentralising the cell groups into full-fledged house churches, more blessings will pour forth.
ME: I think it is better to have cell groups AND the Church. The Church can promote unity and can share more resources. Corporate worship is also a fantastic way to praise and honour God.
Christopher