Not normative? On what basis?

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...

Not normative? On what basis?

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

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

Clarifications (RTC)
Re:

The NT Model is not Normative, Not Meant to be. (Christopher Yip)
Date: 2001, Apr 30
From: RTC

From your answers, it is clear that the churches of today have not violated any NT principles. ++But neither have they largely carried out the intent of those principles the way the NT did. 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? ++By “usual” is meant that the early church felt free to meet anywhere but most often in the homes. But certainly they were not suffering from today’s edifice complex. As for heresies, it was already existent in the first century. Yet we find no evidence of any centralising effort and neither was it taught that one man or one organisation should be the focal point of doctrinal refuge. 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. ++And neither does the Bible say you can, right? So we need to look at what the early church did which would be a reflection of what they believe. We find Paul working with his hands. We find itinerant preachers supported by voluntary giving. In no sense can these be taken to mean salaried people. And I would caution about taking too much liberties with the word “should”. Israel should have or ought not to have any king other than God. God did not say they must not have kings. Even the 10 commandments were couched in terms of “shalls” and not must. Are you then to make a case of shall versus must? You get my point? 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. ++Not true. Proper exegesis says that the Lord’s Supper was taken in the context of a full meal. Whether one really want to practice it that way is a matter of application and how much it reflects the intent of the passage. The idea behind the meal is that of relationships and family setting. It is like having a family meal together. The theology is that we are a household of God and our practice reflects that. On further thought, you are trying to cast the whole issue under moral terms (right vs wrong). Certainly the Bible does not put it in such a way as if it is a sin not to have the Lord’s Supper as a full meal. I’m not saying that it is a sin either. So in that sense I do not subscribe to such use of right and wrong. I would rather argue on the basis of our practices being consistent with the Scriptures and that what was practiced in Scriptures are “best practices”. 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. ++You are confusing what we do with how we do it. If I were to bring Paul to compare the two types of meeting, which do you think he will find more familiar and more consistent with his idea of a church meeting? And what makes you think that without an order of service it means chaos by default? Look at the Church in Corinth, did Paul lay down an order of service or did he appeal to love and self-control in the using of the gifts? In fact, you accentuate the chaos problem because you assume a 500 people meeting. Paul’s idea of house church meetings are that which takes place in a house church setting. 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? ++The principle of 1 Cor 14:26 is full participation. Note the word “everyone” or “each one”. How is the principle of everyone participating adhered to when only a few are exercising their gifts? And please, don’t argue for passive participation as that itself is an oxymoron which is not what is meant by the text. 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. ++I don’t know how you use the word “forced” here. For the Christians, it would normally be guilt trips which after a long while, it becomes “willing”. In any case, I am not talking about how money is being taken from the people, I’m talking about how that money is being used. You may be able to coax people to part with their money as cheerful as they can but you can still apply that money for purposes that are inconsistent with the Scriptures. 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? ++You have to tell me what you mean by NT model. Then would it make sense to say whether it contradicts or not. Certainly from the time of Pentecost to even Paul’s death there was an interval of about 30 years, more than sufficient time for Paul to say “look, too many people, let’s build something for ourselves!” or to institutionalise the church, to give titles to people “out of respect” etc. In fact, house churches which have experience genuine deep relationships and church life will not want to compromise it by growing too big, they will want to open up another house church meeting. ME: How did you argue positively? ++By giving examples of NT church practices that supports what I am saying. You only argue principles. I argue for both principles and practices rooted in the NT. 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. ++Model is different from principles, don’t confuse them. In any case, you may well be using the same terms but give those terms a different meaning as originally intended to mean. Principles can be easily mouthed off but the practices will undermine it. Sure, we cannot say that we did everything exactly as the apostles had done. But can the house church say that? ++Who’s arguing for exactness here? I’m not. Let’s not stretch it too far. I can well argue that if a house church (that seeks to model after the NT) is deemed to be far from functioning like the NT church, then the IC is certainly not on the scale! 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. ++No such ecclesiology as we know it today was even imagined by the apostles! They never thought in terms of institutions but family. And how elaborate a setup is a family? ME: 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. ++And you simply assumed your conclusion too. Even more important is that you must understand that the NT church never thought of the world going all the way to the second millennium! They were all in expectancy of the Lord’s coming again at any time. So the way they operate was the way they wanted it to be and they never thought of their current practices as immature and evolving towards institutionalism. 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 ++Your kind of argument is very typical and it goes to show that like others, you have failed to understand what following the NT model is all about. You paint a strawman that being NT model means following right down to the word and precise actions and then bash this strawman up. Have I argued for such precision? When I argue for a full meal including the Lord’s Supper, I simply mean a full meal as defined by ordinary sense. And certainly that is biblical in the sense that the NT church did it that way. Corporate participation, utilisation of spiritual gifts, body ministry, preaching of God's word, teaching - they are all there! ++But not in the way the NT church understood them! 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. ++Like I have said many times, there are doctrines that pertain to salvation and doctrines that pertain to the health of the church. One is just as important as the other. That’s where the reformation failed to reform. They emphasize too much of justification by faith (soteriology) while at the expense of ecclesiology and import many RC practices that failed to realise the priesthood of believers as understood by the NT church. 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. ++But in the first place, a proper understanding of what a house church is will not face the problem of dealing with a 100 people membership! And I wonder why any church will want to do it the impractical way (buy building, register with the State to get legalised, set up a hierarchy, have AGMs, file returns, appoint auditors, treasurers, chairmans etc) when they can do it the more easy and practical way? You end up having so much organisation that squeezes out the life. 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 ++What do you mean by “Bible say so”? A statement to that effect? BTW, Timothy was no chief elder, in fact there is non such term. That’s reading back into Scriptures. Timothy was an itinerant worker like Paul. He was given certain tasks to do by Paul and then to return to Paul. Many people make the mistake of taking Timothy or Titus as resident pastors. That’s incorrect Bible interpretation. 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? ++I don’t know what you are arguing here, I have never seen the church as a building. Rather you said that “the public churches were permitted and built after Constantine but there is another reason also. These were to guard against heresies.” So I am questioning that church buildings serves no such purpose. 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? ++Like I’ve said, it’s not just about meeting venues. Don’t be like Frank or Yesuthass who thinks that house church means that it is only about houses. It is about a mindset about the church. And the house provides the best setting to express this mindset. There is less room to become lax when you have to function in a house church. And whatever solution you have in place in the house church, can they not be implemented in the church too? ++Not in the way it was meant to be. The institutional church suffers from too much organisational problems that will not allow for house church solutions. ME: This only shows that the cell group administration needs to be finetuned and improved. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. ++The baby (the people) should remain. You should use different water, maybe even different bathtubs! 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. ++The Acts 15 council was convened because the source of conflict came from Jerusalem. It was not ecclesiastical polity in action. Acts 15 gave a good example of how the early church resolved a doctrinal issue that struck at the heart of the Gospel. It is not about church order or institutional churches. 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? ++Neither does the NT says that it is not the way. Rather, if we are to based our faith and practices on Scripture, then we need to be consistent with what the NT church practices. There is always a deeper theology behind their practices and it is not just sheer pragmatism. And if you have a case for some other features to adhere to in order to be in line with NT practices, I will surely welcome you to make a case for it and encourage all to do so. And I can see that in all this discussion you have no significant disagreement with my understanding of the first century church life or the interpretation of Scriptures. You are simply questioning whether we should pattern our practices after them. 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. ++But the cell group IS the church. Yet it is failing to function like one because inherent in the system is the idea that the central organisation is the church whereas the cell group is just a cell. We should promote unity and share resources the way the NT church did it. I hope our attitude towards the NT practices is not “so what? We can do better than them”. In terms of organisational efficiency and getting things done with much pomp and external visibility, yes. But in terms of experiencing a deep and rewarding church life, few will match up to the first century church experience. In closing, here’s an article for you to ponder over. http://home.earthlink.net/~ddcerkel/Apostolic_practices.html