And 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...

And 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)
Re:

Not normative? On what basis? (RTC)
Date: 2001, Apr 30
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

Dear RTC,
YOU: But neither have they largely carried out the intent of those principles the way the NT did.
ME: Are you saying ALL the churches fail to carry out ANY of the intent of those principles? And even when they did indeed fail, is it BECAUSE they were "institutions"? Don't you think this is the same argument as the bible cannot be the only rule of faith since we have 28000 interpretations?
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: You haven't answered the question, RTC. There are definitely pros and cons of house churches and modern churches but is that your complaint? Then it has nothing to do with NT model or biblical exegesis, right?
As for heresies, there is evidence. The Council of Jerusalem is one example. And as early as Irenaeus, there was recognition that the churches had the true deposit of faith. But of course, neither of this explicitly endorses the modern churches, but they don't also reject them.
++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: Then we are back to the same issue. Does it mean that because Paul worked with his hands, pastors too must work with their hands? If you take this argument, don't forget that elders were appointed, so shouldn't all house church leaders be appointed too? I think you misread me. I did say that I think it would be good if pastors can support themselves and this works only if the congregation shares the ministry. But the point is that if the congregation decides to pay the pastor so that he can concentrate on doing a good job well, is it wrong? Yes, you can say that it wasn't in the NT practice but is it wrong? And why is it so? Simply because it wasn't done then? Is that the criteria? If
++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”.
ME: I agree that every meal should reflect our theology. Did you know that is precisely the reason why The Salvation Army doesn't have Lord's Supper? We believe that every meal, eaten at home or at work, should be taken in remembrance of God's grace, including His greatest gift.
I'm not sure if we can read this idea of relationships and family setting into the Lord's Supper. It seems pretty clear that Jesus was making the Passover meal point to Him being the paschal lamb. You might be interested in this. Jesus was a Galilean and according to Josephus, the Mishna, and other ancient Jewish sources we learn that the Jews in northern Palestine calculated days from sunrise to sunrise. That area included the region of Galilee, where Jesus and all the disciples, except Judas, had grown up. Apparently most, in not all, of the Pharisees used that system of reckoning. But Jews in the southern part, which centered in Jerusalem, calculated days from sunset to sunset. Because all the priests necessarily lived in or near Jerusalem, as did most of the Sadducees, those groups followed the southern scheme. Being Galileans, Jesus and the disciples considered Passover day to have started at sunrise on Thursday and to end at sunrise on Friday, i.e. 14 Nisan was from Thursday 6 a.m. to Friday 6 a.m. The Jewish leaders who arrested and tried Jesus, being mostly priests and Sadducees, considered Passover day to begin at sunset on Thursday and end at sunset on Friday, i.e. 14 Nisan was from Thursday 6 p.m. to Friday 6 p.m. By that variation, predetermined by God's sovereign provision, Jesus could thereby legitimately celebrate the last Passover meal with His disciples and yet still be sacrificed as the Paschal Lamb on Passover day! Hence, while the Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus ate the Passover, John follows the Jerusalem Jews in their reckoning of day and says that Jesus died before the Passover. I believe the significance of the Lord's supper is the culmination of all these Passovers in Christ!
On right and wrong, I thought that was what you have been arguing with Frank, et al. Perhaps I read you wrongly. So you agree that while what we do today may be different from what the NT church did, it is not biblically wrong, right? So it is a matter of prudence and expediency, right?
++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.
ME: Again, we are talking only about what was done in Paul's time. RTC, no one is arguing against these facts - that they met in homes, that they had small groups, that they ate a communal meal, that they perhaps was spontaneous. The issue is that you say THEREFORE to be a biblical church, we MUST follow this NT model. Perhaps you didn't say that, but I believe that is the implication. If we have inferred wrongly, then we can end this discussion since it no longer is a case of biblically right or wrong to have house or modern churches.
You said I am confusing the what with the how but wasn't it you who complained against the use of order of service? Did I miss something here?
++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.
ME: Ah, so what you are saying is that in every house church, in every place and country, EVERYONE participates. So if you have a group of 15, you ensure that ALL 15 contribute at EVERY meeting. Is that it? Is that what is meant by 1 Cor 14:26? It appears to me that you are now going into the "what" rather than the "how"!
I don't argue for passive participation, RTC. As I have pointed out, the Church does not have only the Sunday service. It also has cell groups. How many people participate actively on occasions varies and you think that is a contradiction to 1 Cor 14:26? I have yet to find a commentator worth his salt who interprets the text this way.
In any case, we would like 500 people to all participate but that would no longer be a meeting but a 6 months conference! But does it mean that they won't get the chance? No, we have the cell groups. And having the cell ministry as part of the overall church, again, is not biblically wrong.
It is lamentable that few are participating even in cell groups. You don't have such a problem? You mean EVERYONE in house churches participate in EVERY meeting? That would be wonderful and if you can tell us how you make them do it without coercion or embarrassment, I am sure our cell groups can do equally well. You see, RTC, the fact that many don't participate is not the fault of having an "institutional" church. Is there any church, except perhaps the RCC, that says that laity cannot participate in the service? Or could it be the individual's reluctance?
++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.
ME: But again, you haven't proven that collection MUST ONLY be for that two purposes. Sure, it was for that two purposes in NT, but does it say it has to be the same throughout the history of man? The guiding principles in giving are the advancement of God's kingdom and the alleviation of poverty of believers. Only two causes in the NT warrant a collection from the church. They are to help other believers who are in need (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17; Romans 15:25-28; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-15; 9:12) and to support apostles (church planters) in their work (Acts 15:3; Romans 15:23-24; 1 Corinthians 9:1-14; 16:5-6, 10-11; 2 Corinthians 1:16; Philippians 4:14-18; Titus 3:13-14; 3 John 5-8), right?
Now, if I were to follow your example strictly, I shouldn't also give to any charitable organisations like NKF, should I? Because it says to alleviate the poverty of BELIEVERS. So, ALL Christians should henceforth refrain from giving to any charity except Christian ones and ONLY if they use the money to help BELIEVERS. I know how ridiculous this sound but using the way you argue (because the NT did it so must we) how do we know where to stop the parallel? Isn't it arbitrary? I mean now stingy believers can claim a biblical justification for not giving to the non-believing poor!
I think it should be apparent that those accounts of giving and sending apostles were not meant to be THE pattern or norm. It was simply what they did in response to the situation. The LOVESINGAPORE movement, although I have many problems with it, is doing community service by washing cars, baking hot buns, etc. for the community in order to penetrate the community in its evangelism. Heck, we should stop all these since the NT did none of these!
++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: The NT model is your creation, not mine. We'll use your definition. Correct me if I am wrong.
I asked you before - was Christianity a legal religion before Constantine? Wasn't Jesus condemned as a common criminal? Weren't Christians thrown to the lions and burned during the first two hundred years? Do you really think Paul could have said, come, let's build this magnificient big church in the face of the Romans? Could he, RTC?
And about titles, some of the churches with long histories simply retain the terms such as bishops, canon, rector, etc. Others call them elders. For instance, I was once at Bethesda Chapel at Kembangan and I understand they call themselves elders but they do have their own building and they do have order of service and they do meet by the hundreds. Is that OK with the NT model, RTC?
Keeping cell groups small is also a key strategy in cell ministry. As I have said, many of the principles of house church are the same as those of cell groups except the latter come under the bigger umbrella of the church. THey get their resources from it and every week, they all come together for corporate worship. I know the NT church didn't do that but is it therefore biblically wrong?
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.
ME: No, RTC, you are shifting here and there. In an earlier post, when I followed through the implications of your literal interpretation, you said it's the principles. Now you say it is principles and practices. If practices, then why not stop giving to charity, why not take the Lord's supper fully dressed for a marathon, why not stop women from talking, why not take unleaven bread - these ARE the practices, RTC!
++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.
ME: It can happen to anyone, even house church advocates.
++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!
ME: OK, so what then are you arguing? You said the Corinthians ate the Lord's supper as part of the communal meal, so we should do likewise. Isn't that so? Isn't that exactness? And it doesn't matter how far away any church is in that scale since there is no such a scale! As I have said, the acts of the apostles are not all normative. THey are history, not doctrines. The apostles didn't photocopy their writings, they were handcopied - shouldn't we do the same? Isn't photocopying far far off the scale?
++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: But are these "institutional" churches a contradiction to family? You are perhaps thinking of the corporations and you might have confused the two. My fellow congregant at The Salvation Army is as much my brother-in-Christ during the SUnday Service of 100 as he is in the cell meeting of 10! What makes house church=family, modern church not= family? Could that be your caricature, RTC?
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.
ME: And you can read their minds on this? I certainly don't find in Scriptures that because of the imminent return of Christ, they therefore PURPOSELY ensure that they met in house churches. Instead, I read persecution, believers afraid of the Romans finding out their faith, and in history, actual martyrdoms. I am not surprised they met in houses to avoid the law.
In any case, your reply indicates that the bible does not say anthing conclusive that they didn't do these things we do today ON PURPOSE. That's the conclusion, right? I actually didn't assume that they thought of today's church and approved its evolution. What I said was that they were in fact silent - they responded with prudence and expediency to the situation as they always do.
ME: 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.
ME: RTC, I happen to be a supporter of house church myself. I too own Steve Atkerson's Towards A House Church Theology. I may not be an authority on it but I know what house churches are.
Do you see your arbitrariness? It was you who go along this line - arguing on the basis that this is not what the NT church DID! Remember? It was all about what the NT church did and did not do. Please don't jump your own ship. YOu said they ate a communal meal (that's what they did), you said they gave to missions and to poor believers (again, that's what they did) and you say this is what we should do as a church. Am I wrong?
Then you shift to principles. Ok, we say the principles are giving to extend God's kingdom and alleviating suffering, even of non-believers; we say the principle of the Lord's Supper is to remember His death; hence, we dispense with other formalities. You said the principles of church is full participation, utilisation of gifts, we say it is so in our churches. The difference is a matter of degree, that is, how many are using their gifts. It is not part of the church's constitution that we forbid lay participation, that we forbid use of gifts. By implying so, by associating "institutional" churches with all these, aren't you engaging in huffing and puffing your own strawmen too, RTC?
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!
ME: If you mean not the way the NT church DID it, I agree. But if you mean different in understanding, then let's examine your exegesis and compare it to the church's practice. I can use TSA as an example since I am a member.
++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.
ME: AH, so it IS about right and wrong after all, RTC! You mentioned doctrines of the church. I've said it before, 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.
++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: I think people see that a small price to pay for the benefits of meeting in a public church. What is the "proper understanding" of a house church? Is it something not found in Scriptures? So far we have looked at some like the Lord's Supper, titles, and offerings - I don't find what we do in modern churches violating any of these principles. Sure, we agree we don't follow everything they do but that don't make us wrong.
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.
ME: Yes, a statement to that effect. Why not? Are you not implying that the modern church has gone away from a normative NT model? Or are you simply saying we are different but it's ok? You need to show more than just that the NT did this or that, you must show that they actually laid down those things they did as normative for all Christians. Is that too much to ask?
Where does it say that Timothy was to return to Paul? Paul did ask Timothy to abide in Ephesus, didn't he? Didn't Paul charge Timothy to take care of Ephesus? Could he do it from a distance? We don't call 1 & 2 Timothy the "pastoral" epistles for nothing, RTC.
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.
ME: But RTC, aren't you employing double standards? When we say we go to church, that the place we meet is called a church, you make us look ridiculous by saying that you have never seen the church as a building. And now, we use the same argument against you. You call meeting in homes a house church - so how is it that the kitchen or bedroom is the "church"?
The fact that the church, that is, the PEOPLE OF GOD, is the one to guard against heresies, simply shows that whether we meet in public buidlings or at home, it doesn't matter! Just as church BUILDINGS do not serve the purpose of guarding against heresied, the sofa or the coffee table in a home also do not serve the same purpose. And if because of that, the modern churches are invalid, so are house churches.
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.
ME: ANd so it is not wrong ecclesiology to have modern churches. It's just that in your opinion, house churches do a better job. I submit that the cell group ministry of the modern church can also fulfil the same roles and motivate the same mindset. But certainly we do not need to dismantle the whole church to do that.
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: Like what? In any case, if the congregation has opted for a public church instead of the home, they would have to deal with the problems. If a greater good can be achieved for God's kingdom, then the cons may just have to be tolerated. William Booth, founder of TSA, once remarked that if a particular TSA church is not growing, it should self-destruct and make way for more fruitful ones. It is a matter of prudence and expediency. I don't doubt that in certain places, house churches would flourish while in others, the modern public churches would draw the crowds.
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!
ME: So it is a matter of choice.
++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.
ME: Acts 15 says:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (1,2 KJV)
Are Judea and Jerusalem the same? In any case the point was that heresies was not settled at the local level but was referred to another locale. Anyway, this is not very important.
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: RTC, you must be clear about your objections. We can agree 100% with your statement:
"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 yet have the "institutional" churches of today. If you will see this, then perhaps you will have less resistance.
I am an advocate of house churches too. In fact, I am glad to know that it is alright not to go to Sunday services in the church. In the past, I do feel a little guilty when I miss church services. We have been taught that churchgoing is one of the pillars of Christian growth. It is of course but it need not be in the public church. THe same kind of body ministry and exhortation of one another can occur also in smaller groups and at homes. I have a new appreciation of the ministry of the cell groups. But I also look forward to the communion of the larger body of saints each week at Sunday service.
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
ME: OK, so we have the cell churches, we can also still keep the public churches where we can have Gospel rallies, corporate worship, bible studies, seminars, etc. You claimed that the cell group fails to function like a church - we can improve it, no problem but there is no need to tear down the corporate church.
Our attitude to the NT practices is not that we can do better. That is a pejorative description, RTC. Our attitude towards NT practices is that they did what they could given the political and social situation to preach the Gospel and minister to believers. We should do what we can too given our political and social situation to preach the Gospel and minister to believers. You see the house church without the institutional church behind it as the way to go, others see both the cell groups and the institutional churches the way to go. Let's not say the other is unbiblical.
If you are talking about the experience of body ministry, I can agree that the Sunday service cannot offer much but then, is that ever the purpose of corporate worship? No. That is why even cell groups are catching on with the Roman Catholics. But there is no need to dismantle the institutional churches.
Whatever good practices we find in the house church that will help to expand God's kingdom and to make disciples we should adopt but I don't see it a necessity to reject the "institutional" churches.
Christopher